The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, emphasizing the discretion of the Collector to make a reference for the apportionment of compensation and the rights of the parties to seek such a reference.

Per Ms. R. BANUMATHI, J.

Challenging the order made in W.P. No. 6790 of 2007 directing the second respondent/District Collector, Virudhunagar to make a reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short, the Act), claimant in L.A.O.P. No. 5 of 2002, who were respondents 2 to 5 in W.P. No. 6790 of 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 and by a registered Sale Deed dated 10.7.1974, 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.

3. Acquiring lands in S. Nos. 400/2, 405/2 and 406 a total extent of 2.83.03 areas, 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.

4. Inspite of her request, reference under Section 18 was not made to Court. The first appellant has filed W.P. No. 15597 of 1995 and W.P. No. 15598 of 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 of 2002.

5. The compensation was enhanced to Rs. 700/- per cent and payable with interest @ 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.

6. One of the sons of the first appellant first respondent has filed I.A. No. 4 of 2007 under Section 30 of the Act claiming 1/3rd share in the compensation amount deposited. The petition was dismissed on 27.7.2007 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 of 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 of 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.

7. Thereafter, the first respondent has filed W.P. No. 6790 of 2007 seeking writ of mandamus to direct the District Collector to make a reference under Section 30 of the Act in respect of the properties which is the subject matter of L.A.O.P. No. 5 of 2002. Observing that there are rival claims to the compensation awarded by Land Acquisition Tribunal and whenever rival claims are made, Land Acquisition Act enjoins upon the District Collector to make a reference under Section 30 of the Act, the learned single Judge directed the District Collector to make a reference under Section 30 of the Act.

8. Challenging the impugned Order, the learned counsel for the appellant inter alia made the following submissions:

The learned single Judge was not right in finding that