Dismissed

Karuppaiyee @ Karuppaiyammal v. The Collector

Madras HC14 Dec 2021WP/32546/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking compensation for agricultural land damaged during the erection of electric transmission lines. The court held the petition was not maintainable as the fifth respondent, who claimed post-purchase ownership, was the sole recipient of the compensation.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; petitioner granted liberty to proceed in accordance with law before the appropriate forum.

Karuppaiyee @ Karuppaiyammal Vs The Collector — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 14.12.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶5

W.P.No.32546 of 2019 and W.M.P.No.32906 of 2019

¶6

Karuppaiyee @ Karuppaiyammal ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The Collector, Erode District, Erode.

¶9

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Erode District.

¶10

The Tahsildar, Modakuruchi Tahsildar Office, Modakuruchi,Erode District.

¶11

The General Manager, Power Grid Corporation of India, Sankari, Salem District.

¶12

Kuppulakshmi ... Respondents

¶13

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus or other appropriate writ or order in the nature of writ directing the respondents 1 to 3 to consider and pass orders on representation of the petitioner dated 03.10.2019 and 09.10.2019 and direct the respondents 1 to 3 to disperse the compensation to the petitioner for the damage caused to the agricultural land of the petitioner by the 4^th respondent in Survey Nos.408/4, 408/6, 409/5B at Vadukapatti village, Modakuruchi Taluk, Erode District.

¶14

For Petitioner : M/s.V.Elangovan For Respondents R1 to R3 : Mr.P.Gurunathan Additional Government Pleader For Respondent R4 : M/S.Rita chandrasekar For Respondent R5 : M/S.K.Moorthy

¶15

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

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to consider and pass orders on representations of the petitioner dated 03.10.2019 and 09.10.2019 and direct the respondents 1 to 3 to disburse the compensation to the petitioner for the damage caused to the agricultural land of the petitioner by the 4^th respondent in Survey Nos.408/4, 408/6, 409/5B at Vadukapatti village, Modakuruchi Taluk, Erode District.

¶18

The case of the petitioner is that she is the owner of the agricultural land situated in Survey Nos.408/4, 408/6, 409/5B of Vadukapatti village, Modakuruchi Taluk, Erode District (Patta Nos.2331, 2335, 2336, 2337) to the extent of ½ acres. On 07.12.2018, the 4^th respondent entered into the petitioner's land and erected transmission line that caused huge damage to the agricultural land of the petitioner. Thereafter, the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents conducted an inspection and submitted report for fixing compensation. Since, the petitioner was also entitled for compensation for the damage caused by the 4^th respondent while erecting the tower line, the respondents concerned arranged to disburse the entire compensation amount only to the 5^th respondent, who is the adjacent land owner in Survey Nos.408/5, 48/6, 409/7B, 409/6B, 409/5B. Thereafter, the petitioner made representations dated 03.10.2019 and 09.10.2019 to the respondents 1 to 3 requesting not to disburse the entire amount to the 5^th respondent but, no action has been taken. Hence, this Writ Petition.

¶19

3.The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3 submitted that the 4^th respondent has erected transmission line in the disputed property and thereafter, the 3^rd respondent assessed the possession and forwarded the same to the 2^nd respondent for payment of compensation. After perusal of the entire records, the compensation amount has been disbursed to the 5^th respondent since she was entitled for the said property.

¶20

The learned counsel for the 4^th respondent submitted that the fourth respondent has erected the transmission line in the disputed property and after assessing the possession, the same was forwarded to the 2^nd respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer for disbursal of the compensation to the original land owner. Thereafter, the Revenue authorities conducted an enquiry and on verifying and perusing the entire records, decided to disburse the entire amount in favour of the 5^th respondent

¶21

The learned counsel appearing for the 5^th respondent submitted that the fifth respondent purchased the property in Survey Nos.408/5, 408/6, 409/7B, 409/6B and 409/5B of

¶22

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

¶23

Vadugapatti village in Modakurichi Taluk of Erode District on 29.01.1997 from the petitioner and three others by way of sale consideration and she has been in possession and enjoyment of the said properties and paying land tax for the same as well. While so, the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board has erected high tension electric towers in the aforesaid properties, for which she claimed compensation for her agricultural land by submitting all the necessary documents for her ownership as well as possession and enjoyment of the properties in RSF No.408/5 and 408/6; 409/6B, 409/5B; RSF Nos.408/22 and 409/23 of Vadukappti village to the respondents 2, 3 and other officials. On being satisfied that the aforesaid property belonged to her, she was paid a compensation amount of Rs.17,65,615/- dated 27.11.2019. Subsequently, she has also filed a suit in O.S.No.389/2020 before the Subordinate Judge of Erode against the petitioner and the other 3 vendors for declaration that she is the absolute owner of the properties covered under the sale deed dated 29.01.1997.

¶24

Considering the submissions advanced, the fact that the 5^th respondent has filed a suit for declaration in O.S.No.389/2020 before the Subordinate Court and that the petitioner is arrayed as first defendant in the said suit. The present petition at the instance of the petitioner is not maintainable. Further compensation amount almost paid to the petitioner. Therefore, the relief sought for cannot be granted.

¶25

Accordingly this Writ Petition is dismissed. However, petitioner is granted liberty to proceed in accordance with law before the appropriate forum. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

Assistant Registrar(CS VI)

¶28

//True Copy//

¶29

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶30

anu

¶31

¶32

The Collector,

¶33

Erode District, Erode.

¶34

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Erode District.

¶35

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

¶36

3.	The Tahsildar, Modakuruchi Tahsildar Office, Modakuruchi, Erode District.
4.	The General Manager, Power Grid Corporation of India, Sankari, Salem District.
5.	The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.
+1c +1c +1c	c to M/s.S.Doraisamy, Advocate, S.R.No.66681 c to M/S.K.Moorthy , Advocate, S.R.No.67194 c to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.67462
	W.P.No.32546 of W.M.P.No.32906 of	2019 and 2019

¶37

KSM[co] NSK 07/02/2022

¶38

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

Karuppaiyee @ Karuppaiyammal v. The Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karuppaiyee @ Karuppaiyammal v. The 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

B.Rufus Jayaraj Vs The Diocese of Madras

A.Pugazhendhi Vs Sivakumar

Srinivasan Ramachandran Vs Union of India

K.S.Senthilkumar Vs The Executive Engineer

Tmt.K.Kalaiselvi, Vs The Collector

M.Kavitha Priya Darshini Vs the Chairman Tamil nadu Electricity Board