SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(Mad) 989

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
K. KALYANA SUNDARAM, V. BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, JJ.
S. Shylajan – Petitioner
Versus
The Authorized Officer cum Special District Revenue Officer, Land Acquisition for National Highways Authority, Nagercoil & Others – Respondents
W.A.(MD).No. 959 of 2017 & CMP(MD).No. 6453 of 2017
Decided On : 10-04-2018

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:D. Saravanan, Advocate.
For the Respondent:C. Selvaraj, Special Government Pleader, K. Guhan, Advocate.

Proper procedure for resolving disputes over compensation entitlement under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Headnote:

Land Acquisition - Dispute over Compensation - Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Summary

Fact of the Case:

Dispute over compensation for land acquired by the government, involving a mentally retarded person and his siblings. The Writ petitioner sought a Writ of Mandamus to disburse compensation for the acquired land. The appellant, a third party, challenged the order passed in the Writ petition.

Finding of the Court:

The Court found that there was a dispute over the custody of the mentally retarded brother and the compensation amount. The third respondent had received the compensation for one parcel of land, and the dispute arose regarding the compensation for another parcel. The Court held that the compensation amount should be deposited by the third respondent and referred the disputes under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act to the appropriate court.

Issues: Dispute over custody and compensation entitlement, failure to make the appellant a party to the proceedings, and lapses in the disbursement of compensation.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court applied Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which allows the Collector to refer disputes over compensation to the Court. The Court also relied on a Supreme Court case to establish the proper procedure for resolving disputes over compensation entitlement.

Final Decision: The Writ Appeal was allowed, and the Court directed the third respondent to deposit the entire compensation amount and referred the disputes to the appropriate court.

JUDGMENT :

V. Bhavani Subbaroyan, J.

1. This Writ Appeal has been filed against the order passed in W.P.(MD).No.14534 of 2016 dated 27.09.2016 on the file of this Court.

2. The appellant herein has preferred this appeal as a third party upon granting leave to challenge the order passed in W.P.(MD).No.14534 of 2016 on the file of this Court.

3. The brief facts of the case of the appellant herein is that the third respondent herein, who is the Writ petitioner and none other than the brother of the appellant, has filed the Writ petition seeking a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to disburse the compensation amount to him for the land acquired by the respondents in respect of S.Nos.855/7 and 900/1 in Mullivilai 'B' Village, Kalkulam Taluk, Kanyakumari District and to consider his representation dated 22.02.2016 within time frame. The appellant herein would submit that the third respondent/Writ petitioner is in the habit of looting and misappropriating the property of their elder brother Mahadevan @ Madhavan, who is a mentally retarded person. The third respondent/Writ petitioner had made false averments in the affidavit. It is further submitted by the appellant that the third respondent/Writ petitioner has filed M.H.O.P.No.298 of 2015 before the learned District and Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil, without making the appellant herein as a party to the proceedings, seeking for an order to appoint the Writ petitioner as a guardian of their mentally retarded elder brother Mahadevan @ Madhavan, and obtained an order behind the back of the appellant on 02.11.2015, and hence, the appellant filed a petition to set aside the order before the said Court on 18.03.2016 and the same is still pending.

4. The appellant further submitted that his elder brother Mahadevan @ Madhavan is not in the custody of the third respondent/Writ petitioner and he alleged in contrary that the said brother was in custody and care of the appellant, and he was forcibly removed from the custody of the appellant to embezzle the estate of his mentally retarded brother. Hence, the appellant had lodged a Criminal complaint in Eranial Police Station in Crime No.710/2015 and the same is pending. The appellant had also filed a suit for partition in O.S.No.94 of 2014 and it is pending before the District Judge, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil. The appellant further submitted that now his brother Mahadevan @ Madhavan is kept in a home at Madurai, but of course, not under the custody of the Writ petitioner.

5. The third respondent/Writ petitioner has also filed his counter affidavit to the petition seeking leave to file appeal by the appellant in C.M.P.(MD).No.2633 of 2017 in W.A.SR(MD).No.11604 of 2017 in the Writ Appeal, contending that his elder brother Mahadevan @ Madhavan mentally retarded person, who is presently living with him after the death of their father Subbiah Pillai and he is only taking care of his mentally ill brother, and his property within his custody. The Writ petitioner would further contend that there was a partition deed effected between his mother and other brothers and sisters as early as on 24.04.1980. In view of the said partition, S.Nos.855/7 and 900/1 were allotted to their brother Mahadevan @ Madhavan who is a mentally ill person and as per the partition deed, the third respondent, Padmanaba Doss, Krishnakumar were appointed as Guardians to their mentally ill brother, to which, the other brothers and sisters have accepted and signed the said partition deed. However, the appellant herein at that point of time was a minor and hence, he was not added as a party to the proceedings. It is further contended by the Writ petitioner that after the demise of his elder brother Padmanabha Doss, his another brother Krishnakumar was taking care of the said Mahadevan, since he also became old, he was unable to maintain his brother Mahadevan and subsequent to that, The Writ petitioner/third respondent is only taking care of his mentally ill brother Mahad

















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top