Allowed

M. Syed Sulthan Beevi, v. the District Collector

Madras HC22 Jun 2017WP(MD)/12868/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court allowed a writ petition seeking compensation for land acquisition. After the parties filed a joint compromise memo acknowledging the petitioner's entitlement to a specific award amount, the court set aside the impugned order and directed the respondents to pay the amount forthwith.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order was set aside and the respondents were directed to pay the award amount of Rs.16,48,775/- to the petitioner.

M. Syed Sulthan Beevi, Vs the District… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 22.06.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM

¶5

W.P.(MD)No.12868 of 2014

¶6

M.Syed Sulthan Beevi : Petitioner

¶7

-vs-

¶8

The District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

¶9

The Competent Authority and District Revenue Officer, No.11/A, Indira Nagar, Sennamanaickenpatti, Dindigul, Dindigul District.

¶10

The Special Tahsildar, National Highways No.45 Extension, Dindigul.

¶11

R.Bodisamy : Respondents

¶12

Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the order passed by the 3^rd respondent, in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.548/08/A4, dated 19.09.2013 and quash the same and consequently direct the 2^nd respondent to release the compensation to the petitioner, whose lands in Ayyalur Village, Survey No.938/2C1 to an extent of 2700 sq.ft., were acquired for winding of the National Highways No.45.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Gomathi Sankar For R1 to R3 : Mr.A.Muthukaruppan Additional Government Pleader For 4^th Respondent : Mr.R.R.Kannan

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

The writ petition is filed to call for the records pertaining to the order of the 3^rd respondent, dated 19.09.2013, quash the same and consequently to direct the 2^nd respondent to release the compensation to the petitioner in respect of the lands comprised in Survey No.939/2C1 to an extent of 2700 sq. feet in Ayyalur https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Village, which were acquired for winding of the National Highways No.45.

¶16

¶17

2.The case of the petitioner is that the lands in Survey No.938/2C1 to an extent of 6 acres and 68 cents at Ayyalur Village, his father was having 50% share (3 acres and 34 cents). The petitioner derived title to the property, by virtue of a settlement deed in her favour in the year 2002. According to the petitioner, the 4^th respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.23 of 2013 for specific performance by creating a sale agreement. In the meanwhile, the respondents 1 to 3 have acquired the property in dispute, but they failed to pay the compensation amount for the same, in view of the objection filed by the 4^th respondent. Hence, the present writ petition.

¶18

3.It is representation by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the 4^th respondent that the suit in O.S.No.23 of 2013 was decreed, based on the joint compromise memo and as per the joint compromise memo, the petitioner had executed a sale deed in favour of the 4^th respondent for a property to an extent of 2.72 acres, after receiving entire sale consideration. It is further submitted that even in the joint compromise memo, the 4^th respondent permitted the petitioner to withdraw the award amount of Rs.16,48,775/-.

¶19

4.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

¶20

5.The petitioner and the 4^th respondent with their respective counsel are present before this court and filed a joint compromise memo, dated 22.07.2017, which reads as follows:-

¶21

“It is submitted that the petitioner is entitled to get the award amount of Rs.16,48,775/- for acquiring a small portion of 557 sq. mtr of the petitioner's land in Ayyalur Village S.No.938/2C1 for which the 4^th respondent is not having any objection thereto.

¶22

It is submitted that the petitioner executed the sale deed in favour of the 4^th respondent with regard to Ayyalur Village Survey No.938/2C1 to an extent of 2 acre 72 cents and the petitioner will not claim any share and will not interfere with the enjoyment of the 4^th respondent in the said land.”

¶23

6.In the above joint compromise memo, the 4^th respondent has specifically stated that the petitioner is entitled to get the award amount of Rs.16,48,775/-. The order impugned, in this writ https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petition would reveal that in view of the objection filed by the 4^th respondent, the 3^rd respondent refused to pay the award amount to the petitioner.

¶24

¶25

7.In view of the joint memo filed by the parties and also the submissions made on either side, this court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the 2^nd respondent is liable to be set aside.

¶26

8.In the result, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the 2^nd respondent is set aside. The respondents 1 to 3 are directed to pay the award amount of Rs.16,48,775/- to the petitioner forthwith. The joint compromise memo, dated 22.06.2017 shall form part of the record. No costs.

Sd/-

Assistant Registrar

/True copy/

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶31

Encl: Joint Compromise Memo dated 22.06.2017

¶32

To,

¶33

The District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

¶34

The Competent Authority and District Revenue Officer, No.11/A, Indira Nagar,

¶35

Sennamanaickenpatti, Dindigul,

¶36

Dindigul District.

¶37

The Special Tahsildar, National Highways No.45 Extension, Dindigul.

¶38

+1 CC to THE SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SR No. 61873. +1 CC to M/s. G.GOMATHI SANKAR, Advocate, SR No. 61724 +1 CC to M/s. R.R.KANNAN, Advocate, SR No. 61714.

¶39

¶40

PSM/JC/SAR1/07.07.2017/3P/7C

¶41

W.P.(MD)No.12868 of 2014 22.06.2017

¶42

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

M. Syed Sulthan Beevi, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Syed Sulthan Beevi, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.Maruthamuthu, Vs the Arbitrator

Mara Tamilar Senai Vs the Principal Secretary

Sun Set Bazar Vyabarial Nala Vs the Union of India

Sundara Naicker Vs the District Collector

K.Palaniammal, W/O.G.Prabhu Vs the District Registrar

N.Inbavalli, Vs the Executive Engineer