AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Jaichandren, J.—Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, as well as the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the
respondents. It has been stated that the land, in S.F. No. 276/3, in Arasur Village, Sulur Taluk, Coimbatore District, measuring 1.39 acres, had
been sold to Sennimalai Gounder, the grand father of the petitioners, for a valid sale consideration, by way of a registered Sale Deed, dated
29.6.1951. Since then, Sennimalai Gounder had been in absolute possession and enjoyment of the said property. After his death the petitioners
had been in absolute possession and enjoyment of the lands in question.
It has been further stated that the legal heirs of Krishna Gounder had effected a partition, among themselves, by way of a Partition Deed,
including the lands which had already been sold by their father. The land purchased by the grand father of the petitioners had also been included in
the Partition Deed. While so, the first respondent had initiated land acquisition proceedings, under the National Highways Act, 1956, for acquiring
the land in S.F. No. 276/3A, for the purpose of laying a highway, between Sangapalli and Valayar highway. The first respondent had conducted
an award enquiry, in which the petitioners had participated. Necessary documents had also been produced by the petitioners in support of their
claim. The second respondent had also participated in the said award enquiry, based on a patta granted to him, erroneously. The second
respondent has no right or title in the land acquired by the first respondent. However, the first respondent, in his proceedings, dated 30.8.2011,
apportioned the amount of compensation awarded to the various claimants, including the second respondent. Therefore, the petitioners have
preferred the present writ petition before this court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent it has been stated that the order, dated 30.8.2011, had been passed by the first
respondent after taking into consideration all the relevant documents produced by the parties concerned, as there was no doubt with regard to the
ownership or the extent of lands owned by the writ petitioners and the second respondent. The writ petitioners did not prove their ownership in
respect of the entire extent of 1310 square metres of land, acquired for the purpose of laying the highway. The land, in S.F. No. 276/3A, in Arasur
Village, Sulur Taluk, Coimbatore District, had been sub divided. However, the first respondent did not find any dispute in the ownership of the
land in question and therefore, he did not have any doubt in apportioning the amount of compensation paid for the acquisition of the land in
question. As such, the first respondent had not taken the role of the civil court in deciding the dispute relating to the ownership of the land in
question, as alleged by the writ petitioners. Therefore, the question of referring the matter to a civil court, u/s 3H(4) of the National Highways Act,
1956, did not arise.
In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of second respondent it has been stated that the present writ petition filed by the petitioners is not
maintainable, as the only remedy available to the petitioners is before the arbitrator to be appointed by the Central Government, as contemplated
u/s 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956. It has been stated that the land which had been acquired by the first respondent had, originally,
belonged to one Krishna Gounder the paternal grandfather of the second respondent. The said Krishna Gounder had purchased an extent of 1.39
acres in Survey No. 276/3, Arasur Village, Sulur Taluk, along with certain other properties, under a registered Sale Deed, dated 20.5.1918.
Thereafter, Krishna Gounder had sold an extent of 93 cents, out of the total extent of 1.39 acres, in S.F. No. 276/3, to his brother Sennimalai
Gounder, under a Sale Deed, dated 29.6.1951. Krishna Gounder had also sold some of his other properties along with the right in the well
situated, in S.F. No. 276/3. As such, Krishna Gounder had been left with an extent of 46 cents, in S.F. No. 276/3, along with some of his other
properties. Krishna Gounder had four sons, namely, Rangaswamy Gounder, Saravana Gounder, Kumarasamy Gounder and Marappa Gounder.
On 8.6.1960, they had entered into a registered partition, by which an extent of 46 cents, in S.F. No. 276/3, had been allotted to the share of
Saravana Gounder, the grand father of the second respondent, along with certain other properties. From the year, 1918, the family members of
second respondent had been in enjoyment of the land, in S.F. No. 276/3. After the death of the grand father of the second respondent, on
9.5.2004, the property had devolved on his daughters Chinnammal and Kamalam and his son Gopalaswamy, the second respondent herein. On
4.6.1990, Chinnammal and Kamalam had released their share of their property in favour of the second respondent. Thus, the second respondent is
in exclusive possession and enjoyment of 46 cents and 1/4th share in the well therein. Accordingly, the revenue records had been mutated in the
name of the second respondent. While so, the first respondent had proposed to acquire the land in question, for the formation of a service road
along the National Highway NH-47. The publication had shown the second respondent, as well as the petitioners herein, as the persons interested
in the lands, in S.F. No. 276/3. The petitioners had put forward a plea that the second respondent had no right, title or interest in the land
comprised in S.F. No. 276/3 and that the petitioners were the sole owners of the said land. In view of the rival contentions raised on behalf of the
petitioners, as well as the second respondent, the first respondent herein had called them to appear for a personal enquiry and to produce the
relevant documents in support of their claims. Thereafter, the first respondent had passed an order, u/s 3G of the National Highways Act, 1956,
determining the amount payable as compensation. The first respondent had also disbursed the amounts due to the second respondent as his share.
As such, there is no contentious issue to be decided by this court in the present writ petition.
It has been further stated that the claim of the petitioners that the first respondent ought to have referred the matter to the Principal Civil Court,
u/s 3H(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956, is without any merit. In fact, the remedy available to the petitioners is u/s 3G(5) of the Act.
Therefore, the present writ petition filed by the petitioners is devoid of merits and it is liable to be dismissed.
In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available,
it is noted that the first respondent had apportioned the amount awarded as compensation for the acquisition of the land, in S. No. 276/3, Arasur
Village, Sulur Taluk, which had been acquired for the purpose of laying the service roads in the national highway NH-47, as per the provisions of
the National Highways Act, 1956. It is noted that a dispute had been raised before the first respondent, with regard to the title of the land in
question, acquired under the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956. Rival claims had been made on behalf of the petitioners, as well as
the second respondent. While so, the first respondent had taken into consideration the documents produced before him and had apportioned the
award amount to the various persons, without following the procedures contemplated, u/s 3H(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956.
From a reading of Clause (4) of Section 3H of the said Act it is clear that, if a dispute arises, with regard to the apportionment of the amount or
any part thereof, the competent authority shall refer the dispute to the jurisdictional Principal Civil Court, within whose jurisdiction the land in
question is situated. Instead of referring the dispute to the Principal Civil Court concerned, as provided under the said clause, the first respondent,
who is the competent authority, had apportioned the award amount amongst the rival claimants. It is also noted that Clause 5 of Section 3G of the
National Highways Act, 1956, would apply only when the amount determined by the competent authority, under sub Sections (1) and (2) of the
said Section, is not acceptable to the parties concerned. Only in such cases the amount shall be determined by the arbitrator to be appointed by
the Central Government. However, in the present case, the first respondent had determined the amount of compensation to be paid for the
acquisition of the land in question. However, rival claims had been made by the petitioners, as well as the second respondent, with regard to the
apportionment of the amount awarded as compensation. In such a case, the first respondent ought to have referred the dispute to the Principal
Civil Court having the jurisdiction to decide the dispute, as per Clause 4 of Section 3H of the national Highways Act, 1956. In such view of the
matter, the court is of the considered view that the impugned proceedings of the first respondent, dated 30.8.2011, in apportioning the award
amounts, amongst the parties concerned, is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned proceedings of the second respondent is set aside.
Consequently, the first respondent is directed to refer the dispute to the Principal Civil Court having competent jurisdiction, to settle the dispute, as
per Clause 4 of Section 3H of the National Highways Act, 1956, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.