JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)CHALLENGING the order made in W.P. No.6790/2007, directing the second respondent/District Collector, Virudhunasar to make a reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act [for short, the Act], claimant in LAOP No.5/2002, who were respondents 2 to 5 In W.P. No.6790/2007, have preferred this Appeal.
(2.)FACTS in a nutshell, which led to the filing of this Appeal, are as follows : First respondent and Appellants 2 and 3 and late Murugesan are the sons of Appellant Papammal. 4th respondent Saraswathi is the wife of late Murugesan and daughter-in-law of the first Appellant. Property in S. Nos.400/2, 405/2 and 406 of Villpathri Village, Aruppukottai Taluk, Virudhunagar District and other properties belonged to late Subban Chettiar, husband of the first Appellant. Subban Chettiar has settled certain items of properties in favour of his wife first Appellant. After the death of Subban Chettiar, there was partition in the family of Subban Chettiar and by a registered Sale Deed dated 10.07.1974, the properties were divided. As per the partition Deed, `A' Schedule property which includes the above said S.Nos.400/2, 405/2 and 406 and other items of properties was given to the first Appellant. The first Appellant is to enjoy `A' Schedule property during her life time without encumbering or alienating the properties. After her life time, all four sons would be equally entitled to `A' Schedule property.
Acquiring lands in S. Nos.400/2, 405/2 and 406 a total extent of 2.83.03 acres, Section 4(1) Notification was made for acquiring the lands for Kulu Santhai Water Reservoir Project. Under Award Nos.18 and 19, compensation was paid to the first Appellant and she received the same under protest and has requested to refer the same under Section 18 of the Act.
In spite of her request, reference under Section 18 was not made to Court, The first Appellant has filed W.P. No.15597/1995 and W.P. No.15598/1995 for a direction to refer under Section 18. After contest, the Writ Petitions were allowed, ordering the District Collector to make a reference under Section 18. Section 18 reference was taken on file in L.A.O.P. No.5/2002.
(3.)THE compensation was enhanced to Rs.700/- per cent and payable with intarest @ 12% p.a. On the total compensation amount payable, 30% solatium was also awarded. As such, the District Collector has deposited Rs.25,07,031/- as compensation amount.
One of the sons of the first Appellant first respondent has filed I.A. No.4/2007 under Section 30 of the Act claiming 1/3rd share in the compensation amount deposited. The Petition was dismissed on 27.07.2007 by the Sub-Court, Aruppukottai. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the first respondent was aware of the proceedings in L.A.O.P. No.5/2002. But he had not taken immediate steps to claim his share. The learned Subordinate Judge held that there was no reference under Section 30 by the District Collector. The learned Subordinate Judge also took the view that compensation amount was enhanced in L.A.O.P. No.5/2002 after full trial, and after order was passed in a reference under Section 18 of the Act, apportionment cannot be ordered especially when there is no reference under Section 30 of the Act.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.