IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. SOUNTHAR, J.
O. Mohan - Petitioner
Versus
P.S. Krishnaraj (died) (Rep.by his legal heirs respondent 1 to 3 hereinafter), Canagaradjou and Ors. - Respondents
C.R.P.Nos.361 and 362 of 2020, 847, 851, 2663 and 2665 of 2022 and CMP.Nos.1872 of 2020, 1881 of 2020, 4306 of 2022, 4334 of 2022, 6120 and 13813 of 2022, 13820 and 6119 of 2022
Decided On : 12-01-2023
Constitution of India, 1949 - Article 227 - Land Acquisition Act - Section 18 - Transfer of Property Act - Section 54 - Enhanced Compensation - Seeking Payment Out -. CRP arising out of dismissal filed by revision petitioner seeking payment out of his half share in land acquisition compensation
arising out of dismissal filed by original owners of land his siblings - Petitioner herein seeking payment out of compensation – Held, Court hold that if at all petitioner has any right to share in compensation amount by virtue of agreement right under agreement can be enforced by petitioner by initiating appropriate legal proceedings not entitled to maintain a petition for payment a person interested in land - Petitioner initiates any legal proceedings based on his right under contract validity of agreement its enforceability gone into in said proceedings - Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed.
ORDER :
[PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the Order and decretal order dated 22.10.2019 and made in I.A.No.2073 of 2018 in LAOP.No.3 of 2001 on the file of the Principal District Court at Puducherry praying to set aside the same.]
[PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the Order and decretal order dated 22.10.2019 and made in I.A.No.2074 of 2018 in LAOP.No.4 of 2001 on the file of the Principal District Court at Puducherry praying to set aside the same.]
[PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the Order and decretal order dated 03.12.2021 and made in I.A.No.264 of 2020 in LAOP.No.3 of 2001 on the file of the Principal District Court at Puducherry.]
[PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the Order and decretal order dated 03.12.2021 and made in I.A.No.62 of 2020 in LAOP.No.3 of 2001 on the file of the Principal District Court at Puducherry.]
[PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the Order and decretal order dated 03.12.2021 and made in I.A.No.64 of 2020 in LAOP.No.4 of 2001 on the file of the Principal District Court at Puducherry praying to set aside the same.]
[PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the Order and decretal order dated 03.12.2021 and made in I.A.No.266 of 2020 in LAOP.No.4 of 2001 on the file of the Principal District Court at Puducherry praying to set aside the same.]
1. CRP.No.362 of 2020 arising out of dismissal of I.A.No.2074 of 2018, which was filed by revision petitioner seeking payment out of his half share in the land acquisition compensation i.e. Rs.1,10,77,157/-.
2. CRP.No.361 of 2020 arising out of dismissal of I.A.No.2073 of 2018 filed by the original owners of the land namely Krishnaraj (died) his siblings and petitioner herein (agreement holder) seeking payment out of the compensation amount of Rs.2,89,77,335.50/-.
3. While these two revisions are pending before this Court, the respondents 1 to 3 herein filed a petition for receiving cheque for part payment of land acquisition compensation amount lying in Court deposit in I.A.No.264 of 2020, I.A.No.62 of 2020 in LAOP.No.3 of 2001 and I.A.No.64 of 2020 and I.A.No.266 of 2020 in LAOP.No.4 of 2001. The Court below ordered the said application on the ground that there is no interim stay passed by this Court and aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner has filed CRP.Nos.847, 851, 2663 and 2665 of 2022. All the CRPs are connected together and the main point to be decided is whether the petitioner herein is entitled to any portion of the compensation amount as a person interested in the acquired land. Hence, all these cases are heard together and common order is passed.
4. As per the admitted case of the parties, the land with an extent of 3 Hectares and 62 Ares in S.No.R.S.17/1 in Reddiarpalayam Revenue Village was originally owned by one Subramania Chettiyar. He executed a gift deed in favour of his son deceased Krishnaraj on 11.03.1940, whereunder, he had given half of the said property in favour of his son.
Thereafter, Subramania Chettiyar died intestate and his half share was inherited by his four children namely deceased Krishnaraj and respondents 1 to 3 herein. Therefore, the deceased Krishnaraj was entitled to 5/8th share in the said land and the respondents 1 to 3 herein are entitled to 1/8th share each. The said land was acquired by the 4th respondent for construction of pediatric and women hospital by invoking emergency provision of land acquisition. These are all the admitted facts by both the parties.
5. According to the petitioner, on 09.02.1994, he entered into an agreement with deceased Krishnaraj, whereunder, it was agreed between the parties to the agreement that the petitioner herein should develop the land by plo
Thiriveedhi Channaiah vs. Gudipudi Venkata Subba Rao (D) by Lrs. and others
A compromise decree's unambiguous terms govern claims over compensation amounts, barring revision attempts by parties seeking to contest prior agreements.
A consent agreement in land acquisition effectively precludes subsequent claims for additional compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, confirming the binding nature of mutually agreed terms betw....
Only those with registered titles have the legal entitlement to compensation under land acquisition proceedings, and claims for common areas must be substantiated by clear legal doctrines.
The principle of 'feeding the grant by estoppel' ensures that the transferee retains rights in land even if initial claims are disputed, affirming established ownership rights based on historical tra....
The court emphasized that documentary evidence is crucial in establishing title in land acquisition disputes and upheld the principle that compensation is due only to the rightful title holder.
when there is a dispute between rival claimants, though not they appeared before the Acquisition Officer, still, they can claim compensation awarded under the Award.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.