ORDER :

R. Mahadevan, J.

1. While CRP(NPD)(MD) Nos. 1141 to 1158 of 2013 have been filed by one A. Rajendran, Advocate, CRP(NPD)(MD) Nos. 1940 to 1953 of 2013 have been preferred by the claimants. Inasmuch as these two, batches of the cases arises from the one and the same order dated 02.01.2013 passed by the learned II Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Thanjavur, they were heard together and are decided by this common order.

2. The succinctly stated facts are as follows.

2.1. Feeling aggrieved and being dissatisfied with the award passed by the Special Tehsildar (Land Acquisition), Air Force Station, Revenue Divisional Office, Thanjavur, the claimants filed the Land Acquisition Original Petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, before the learned II Additional District Judge, Thanjavur. After due contest and upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the Reference Court enhanced the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, vide judgment and decree dated 03.02.2010. Challenging the same, the Land Acquisition Officer preferred Appeal Suit before this Court which vide judgment and decree dated 22.12.2011 dismissed the said appeal suits thereby confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Reference Court. Further, this Court directed the Land Acquisition Officer to deposit the amount awarded by the Reference Court, within a period of one month, if not already deposited. One A. Rajendran, Advocate appeared and conducted all these proceedings on behalf of the claimants.

2.2. Subsequently, the claimants filed cheque applications to withdraw the amount lying in the deposit through another advocate by name S. Karunakaran, Opposing the same. A. Rajendran, filed applications under Order III Rule 4 CPC praying to dismiss the cheque applications filed by the claimants as no leave was obtained to determine his vakalat for the claimants in accordance with law. By separate orders dated 02.01.2013 the Court below directed the applications filed by the said Advocate Rajendran to be taken on file only to the extent of the alleged legal remuneration claimed by him. Aggrieved over the same, the counsel as well as the claimants filed the respective batch of Civil Revision Petition before this Court.

3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner in C.R.P.(NPD)(MD) Nos. 1141 to 1158 of 2013, the petitioner is a practicing Advocate and he appeared for the claimants and conducted the proceedings before the Land Acquisition Officer, Reference Court as well as this Court for a period of nearly 17 years without receiving any amount towards fees, miscellaneous expenses and other professional charges; however, the claimants have indulged in an unfair practice by filing cheque applications through another Advocate without obtaining consent from the petitioner and without seeking leave from the Court below; and hence, the court below ought to have dismissed the cheque applications filed by the claimants. According to the learned counsel, the claimants are at liberty to engage anyone as the like, but before engaging another counsel, they have to pay the legal fees to the counsel already on record, without discharging that duty, the claimants have no right to engage another counsel and to prevent such erosion, it is a practice in force that they have to obtain permission from the court before whom the case is pending, whereas no such permission was obtained by the claimants; and as such, further proceedings issuing cheques to the claimants with respect to the compensation for the lands acquired cannot be allowed to proceed. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed to set aside the order impugned herein and allow the Civil Revision Petition filed by the Advocate Rajendran.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioners in CRP(NPD)(MD) Nos. 1940 to 1953 of 2013/claimants submitted that the recovery of remuneration cannot be done under Order III Rule 4 C.P.C. and the fees payable to the earlier