Point of Law: Claim of a person to be a cultivating tenant has to be decided by the competent Authority under the provisions of the Act and such issue cannot be decided by the District Court as it is not a dispute with regard to the apportionment of compensation.

JUDGMENT :

T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.

(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order, dated 23.03.2021, passed in W.P.(MD) No.18081 of 2020, on the file of this Court.)

1. The third respondent in W.P.(MD) No.18081 of 2020 is the appellant before us.

2. The above said writ petition was filed by the first respondent herein for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the order dated, 23.09.2020, passed by the second respondent herein and to pay the entire compensation amount for acquisition of land in Survey Nos.46/5A and 47/5B of Thamaraipatti Village, Madurai District.

3. The appellant had also filed a writ petition in W.P.(MD) No. 19497 of 2019 claiming that he should be paid separate compensation as he was the cultivating tenant in the land and he was a person interestedin the property.

4. The writ petition filed by the first respondent was allowed and the relief sought was granted in its entirety. The writ petition filed by the appellant was disposed of with an observation that it is open to the appellant to approach the second respondent for establishing his right as cultivating tenant for the purpose of compensation payable to him in terms of the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956 (in short, the Act) and on such representation being made, the same shall be considered by the Authority and orders be passed within a time frame.

5. The appellant has not filed appeal as against the order passed in the writ petition filed by him, but he is aggrieved by the order passed allowing the writ petition filed by the first respondent in its entirety.

6. The subject property was originally owned by one Rajalakshmi Ammal, who had sold the same to Janab.A.Raja Mohammed and his son Ramu by way of a registered sale deed dated 15.12.2015. The said purchasers had sold the property to the first respondent and her son Balakumar under five registered sale deeds all dated 29.12.2015. The revenue records have been mutated in favour of the first respondent.

7. When the subject property was owned by Rajalakshmi Ammal, she was cultivating the same and after the first respondent purchased the same, there was no cultivation due to shortage of water and the land stood classified as Tharisu. Land Acquisition proceedings were initiated under the Act during 2018 and culminated in an Award granting compensation. The appellant herein claimed that he is the cultivating tenant of the land and that he is entitled for 10% of the compensation payable by the Government. The request made by the appellant was not considered as there was no cultivation being done in the subject property. That apart, the appellant and the fourth respondent herein stated to have approached the first respondent stating that the fourth respondent has entered into an agreement for transfer of the socalled rights as a cultivating tenant in his favour by virtue of an unregistered document dated 08.07.2010 for a consideration of Rs.46,00,000/-. The first respondent would state that this unregistered document has been created to make a claim against the Government and to unjustly enrich themselves.

8. The appellant filed W.P.(MD) No.19497 of 2019 praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the official respondents to pass an award and provide compensation to him by recognising him as a cultivating tenant. As observed earlier, the said writ petition stood disposed of by issuing a direction to the appellant to approach the concerned Authority.

9. While so, the second respondent herein, by communication dated 23.09.2020, informed the first respondent that due to the pendency of the writ petition filed by the appellant raising a dispute as to the payment of compensation, the amount so determined towards the compensation would be deposited before the District Court. Challenging the said communication dated 23.09.2020, the first respondent filed the writ petition in W.P.(MD) No. 18081 of 2020, which has been allowed by the impugned order.

10. Mr.