The court upheld the validity of compensation awarded based on title documents and revenue records, emphasizing the petitioners' failure to participate in prior proceedings undermined their claims.

ORDER :

The issue involved in both the writ petitions being common, they are taken up together, heard and decided by this common order.

2. W.P.No.18709 of 2007 has been filed seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the first respondent to refer the award No.3/2007 dated 22.03.2007 with respect to S.No.454/1B, Moranapalli Village, Kumudhepalli Post, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District under Sections 8 and 9 of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997.

3. W.P.No.28588 of 2017 has been filed for the issue of a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents 1 to 6 from disbursing enhanced compensation amount awarded with respect to the land in S.Nos.454/1B in L.A.O.P. Nos.92,93 and 94 of 2007 to respondents 3 to 5, till the title dispute over the said land is finally decided under Section 9, ibid.

4. Heard Mr. P. Mani, learned counsel for the petitioners in both the writ petitions, Mr. A. Selvendran, learned Special Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2 in both the writ petitions and Mr.A.Swaminathan, learned counsel for respondents 3 to 5 in both the writ petitions.

5. The case of the petitioners is that they are the owners of the subject property which was inherited by them from their father. The further case of the petitioners is that patta no.280 was issued in the name of their father. All of a sudden, the patta was mutated in the name of respondents 3 and 4, who, according to the petitioners, have no right or title over the property. The petitioners approached the Sub Collector, Hosur, and sought for a relief of deletion of the names of the private respondents from the revenue records. The Sub Collector, Hosur, through proceedings dated 18.05.2006, rejected the appeal on the ground that there is a suit pending on the file of the District Munsif Court, Hosur, seeking for the relief of partition.

6. The petitioners came to know that an award has been passed to the effect that compensation with respect to S.No.454/1B was directed to be paid in favour of the private respondents and the said award has been put to challenge in W.P.No.18709 of 2007.

7. The private respondents, not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Special Tahsildar, filed L.A.O.Ps.92,93 and 94 of 2007 and the Reference Court had enhanced the compensation. The petitioners therefore filed W.P.No.28588 of 2017 to forbear the official respondents from disbursing enhanced compensation awarded in the land acquisition proceedings in favour of respondents 3 to 5 in W.P.No.28588 of 2017.

8. The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit. The first respondent has taken a stand that insofar as the subject property in S.No.454/1B, the patta stood in the name of the private respondents and there was no civil proceedings pending insofar as this property is concerned and therefore, the compensation was directed to be paid in favour of the private respondents. A further stand has been taken by first respondent to the effect that there is a serious dispute with respect to the ownership of the land in S.No.454/1A which could not be decided by the Land Acquisition Officer and therefore, the compensation was ordered to be deposited in the Civil Court and the parties were referred to the Civil Court. Thus, for the lands that were acquired in S.Nos.454/1A and 454/1B, compensation for S.No.454/1B belongs to respondents 3 to 5 and hence, compensation was directed to be paid to them. For the other property, the parties were directed to agitate their rights before the Civil Court. Thereafter, the private respondents sought for enhancement of compensation and filed LAOPs and the same were also allowed and the compensation was enhanced. Aggrieved by the same, the Land Acquisition Officer filed A.S.Nos. 471,472 and 473 of 2010 before this Court and an interim order was passed directing deposit of 50% of the enhanced amount together with interest. The same was deposited with reference to the property in S.No.454/1B and respondents 3 to 5 have wi