Allowed

Mariyammal. B v. The District Collector

Madras HC8 Aug 2024WP(MD)/15306/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench directed the Special Tahsildar to deposit land acquisition compensation for specific plots into a pending civil suit filed by the petitioner against co-owners. The court overruled the respondent's objection regarding a non-appearance, noting co-owners decide apportionment, and ordered the civil court to invest the sum in an interest-bearing account.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 2nd Respondent to deposit compensation to O.S.No.124 of 2011; Civil Court directed to invest amount in interest-bearing account within one month.

Mariyammal. B Vs The District Collector — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.15306 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 08.08.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.15306 of 2024

B.Mariyammal

... Petitioner

The District Collector, Dindigul, Dindigul District.

¶11

The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), National Highways, No. 209, Unit-I, Dindigul District.

¶12

Kaliya Moorthy

¶13

Vadivel

¶14

Chokkalingam

¶15

Palanichamy

¶16

Sakaravarthi

¶17

Paramasivam

¶18

Parvathy

¶19

Ramanan

¶20

1/6

¶21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶22

W.P.(MD)No.15306 of 2024

¶23

Vani

¶24

Sudha

¶25

... Respondents

¶26

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2^nd Respondent to deposit the compensation award amount for the acquired lands in Survey No. 16/2A and Survey No. 90/2C2 having an extent of 250 sq.m. and 125 sq.m respectively at Morpatti village, Vedasandur taluk, Dindigul District to the credit of O.S.No. 124 of 2011, on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Vedasandur within the time frame fixed by this Court.

¶27

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Prithviraj For Respondents : Mr.D.Sadiq Raju (R1,R2) Special Government Pleader Ms.B.Deepa (R3,R6, 8 to 12) No Appearance (R4,5,7)

¶28

O R D E R

¶29

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned order of the 1st Respondent in No. 35/2018 dated 21.5.2018 and to quash the same and consequently directing the 1st Respondent to delete the Petitioners property situated in New Survey No. 1003/1B measuring an extent of 1.80 Acres in the Schedule of the Four registered documents viz., (1) Doc.No. 169/2009, (2) Doc. 951/2009, (3) Doc. No. 203/2009 and (4) Doc. No. 1155/2009 on the file of the 1st Respondent.

¶30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶31

2/6

¶32

W.P.(MD)No.15306 of 2024

¶33

2.Heard Mr.C.Prithviraj, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.D.Sadiq Raju, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 &2 and Ms.B.Deepa, learned counsel appearing for R3, R6, R8 to 12. Perused the materials available on record.

¶34

3.This writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the second respondent to deposit the compensation award in respect of land acquisition pertaining to lands in S.No.90/2C2 and 16/2A.

¶35

4.The petitioner has filed a suit as against the private respondents in O.S.No.124 of 2011 on the file of Principal District Munsif Court, Vedasandur. In that suit, preliminary decree has already been passed and now, the matter is pending for allotment of shares as per final decree. Therefore, the co-owners are also entitled for compensation. Hence, seeks direction to the 2^nd respondent to deposit the compensation award amount in the pending suit.

¶36

5.The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 3, 6, 8 to 12 submitted that they have no objection for making such deposit to the credit of

¶37

pending suit.

¶38

3/6

¶39

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶40

W.P.(MD)No.15306 of 2024

¶41

6.It is only the contention of the learned Special Government Pleader

¶42

appearing for the respondents 1 & 2 that the 4^th respondent has given an objection to make such deposit. Further, till the final decree is passed, it is not feasible to deposit the said amount.

¶43

7.Despite service of notice to the respondents 4, 5 & 7 and name printed in the cause list, none appeared.

¶44

8.This Court is not concerned about the contention raised by the 2^nd respondent, since it is for the co-owners to decide the manner in which the compensation amount shall be apportioned. Moreover, the 4^th respondent is not appeared before this Court and remains unrepresented.

¶45

9.In view of the above, let the second respondent is directed to deposit the compensation award amount for the acquired lands in S.Nos.16/2A & 19/2C2 to the credit of O.S.No.124 of 2011 on the file of Principal District Munsif Court, Vedasandur. On such deposit, the concerned Civil Court is directed to deposit the same in any interest bearing account in anyone of the Nationalised Bank till the final decree is being passed, within a period of one month, from the

¶46

4/6

¶47

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶48

W.P.(MD)No.15306 of 2024

¶49

date of deposit.

¶50

10.With the above directions, this writ petition stands disposed of.

¶51

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶52

08.08.2024

¶53

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No PNM

¶54

To 1. The District Collector, Dindigul, Dindigul District.

¶55

The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), National Highways, No. 209, Unit-I, Dindigul District.

¶56

5/6

¶57

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶58

W.P.(MD)No.15306 of 2024

¶59

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.

¶60

PNM

¶61

ORDER IN W.P.(MD)No.15306 of 2024

¶62

08.08.2024

¶63

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶64

6/6

Mariyammal. B v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mariyammal. B 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

karunakaran.v Vs The District Collector

Mani Vs the District Registrar (Admn)

Kathiresan Vs the Appellate Authority / Deputy Inspector General of Registration

Sadhasivam.P Vs the Inspector General of Registration

Karmegam Vs The District Collector / Appellate Authority

Sivabalaji. N Vs The Sub Registrar