The court ruled that in land acquisition cases, compensation must be apportioned 25% to the cultivating tenant and 75% to the landlord, based on statutory provisions and evidence of possession.

ORDER :

P.B. BALAJI, J.

The petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.7827 of 2020 challenges the impugned order passed by the first respondent in proceedings in Na.Ka.J3/2136/2017 dated 17.02.2020 and to consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 to determine and disburse the compensation amount at the ratio of 3/4^th to the cultivating tenant and 1/4th to the landlord in respect of the land measuring 2000 square meters out of total 50 ares in Resurvey No.37/6 in Therekalputhoor Village, Agastheeswaram Taluk, Kanyakumari District.

2. The petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.5282 of 2023 challenges the impugned order of the third respondent in Ni.A.Thae.Ne.482/2022 dated 21.12.2022 and to consequently direct the 1^st respondent to disburse the entire compensation amount as per the Award No.02/2018 dated 19.02.2018 for acquisition of land in S.No.37/6B at Therkalputhoor Village, Agastheeswaram Taluk, Kanyakumari District, to the petitioner.

3. Both the writ petitions in W.P.(MD)No.7827 of 2020 as well as W.P.(MD)No.5282 of 2023 have been clubbed together by orders of the Hon'ble Administrative Judge, the writ petitions are heard together and disposed of by way of this common order.

4. I have heard Mr.D.Nallathambi, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.7827 of 2020 and fourth respondent in W.P. (MD)No. 5282 of 2023, Mr.H.Arumugam, learned counsel for the third respondent in W.P.(MD)No.7827 of 2020 and petitioner in W.P.(MD)No. 5282 of 2023 and Mrs.S.Jeyapriya, learned Government Advocate for the official respondents in both the writ petitions.

5. The sum and substance of the dispute in both these writ petitions is as to the entitlement to compensation under land acquisition proceedings.

6. The petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.7827 of 2020 is a cultivating tenant and the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.5282 of 2023 is the land lord. Both the writ petitioners have claimed compensation, in respect of the land acquisition proceedings initiated against the property under the occupation of the cultivating tenant and belonging to the temple/landlord.

7. The case of the landlord is that the entire compensation amount is payable only to the landlord and nothing is payable to the cultivating tenant. However, on the contrary, the case of the cultivating tenant is that 3/4^th of the compensation is payable to him and only 1/4^th of the compensation is payable to the landlord/temple.

8. The impugned order passed by the first respondent in W.P.(MD) No.7827 of 2020, directing the parties to approach the competent civil Court and get the rights declared before claiming compensation, is being challenged by the cultivating tenant, on the ground that the petitioner/cultivating tenant has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the subject lands for more than 4 ½ decades and also claims that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has already settled the legal position in matters like, this in a judgment reported in 1996-8-SCC-664 (Mangat Ram & Ors. V. State of Haryana & Ors.) and therefore, the impugned order directing the parties to approach the civil Court is clearly erroneous and perverse.

9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the landlord, viz., petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.5282 of 2023, Mr.H.Arumugam, would contend that the provisions of the National Highways Act 1956 the cultivating tenant only to 10% of the compensation determined, clearly entitled as per Section 3G (1) of the National Highways Act and the remaining compensation has to be paid only to the landlord, viz., the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.5282 of 2023. The very same order is under challenge in both the writ petitions.

10. It is contended on behalf of the second respondent that only because of the issue between the writ petitioners, the compensation amount has not been disbursed and further stated that the first respondent has already kept compensation in a joint account as per the provisions of the National Highways Act 1956. The writ petition is therefore sought to be dismissed, as nothing survives in view of the deposit already made