Legal heirs must substantiate claims to compensation for acquired land; mere assertions of ownership are insufficient without evidence.

JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P5 order of the 2^nd respondent and also for a consequential direction to the 2^nd respondent to refer the dispute between the parties regarding the apportionment of award amount in respect of the acquired land to the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction, as mandated under Section 3H (4) of the National Highways Act , 1956.

2. It is contended that petitioners and respondents 4 to 8 are siblings and they are the children of one Chirakkal Xavier and Mary Xavier. A land having an extent of 0.2271 hectares in Sy.No.23/3-2 Village, Paravoor Taluk belonged to Sri.Chirakkal Xavier, the father of petitioners and respondents 4 to 8. The said Sri.Chirakkal Xavier passed away on 22.01.2006. It is the contention of the petitioners that the said property devolved on his wife Mary Xavier and petitioners and respondents 4 to 8 as per the provisions of Indian Succession Act , 1925. On 26.03.2016, with the passing away of their mother Smt.Mary Xavier, the said land devolved on petitioners and respondents 4 to 8 equally. The 4^th respondent was managing the entire family estate including the aforesaid land. While so, as per the gazette notification of the National Highway Authority, the aforesaid land was notified for acquisition for the development of NH-66. The 2^nd respondent issued a notice under Section 3E(1) of the National Highways Act , notifying the 4^th respondent that the compensation for acquiring the aforesaid land having an extent of 0.2271 hectares has been allowed and ready for disbursement. As per Ext.P1 notice, the 4^th respondent was asked to appear before the 2^nd respondent along with the title deeds of the said land, so that the award amount could be deposited. It is the case of the petitioners that the 4^th respondent has devised a way to project himself as the sole owner of the acquired property. Much later, petitioners and respondents 5 to 8 came to know that the 4^th respondent has created bogus settlement deed Nos.6992 of 2002 dated 27.12.2002 and 7002 of 2002 dated 28.12.2002 of Sub Registrar's Office, Alangad as per which he claimed that their late father had gifted the acquired land in question to him. On having come to know of the same, Ext.P2 lawyer notice was issued to the 2^nd respondent opposing the move to release the award amount to the 4^th respondent. The 2^nd respondent issued a hearing notice, which was also served on the petitioners and respondents 5 to 8 and they submitted Ext.P4 written statement objecting the release of the award amount to the 4^th respondent. It is contended that though the 2^nd respondent found that there is a title dispute between the petitioners, respondents 4 to 7 and the 3^rd respondent, did not refer the dispute to the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction as mandated under Section 3H (4) of the , 1956. Instead, the 2^nd respondent relied on the report of the 3^rd respondent and rejected Ext.P4 objections as per Ext.P5 order and it is the said order that is under challenge in this writ petition.

3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that going by the Indian Succession Act , the petitioners and respondents 4 to 8 being the legal heirs of the deceased Sri. Chirakkal Xavier, are entitled to obtain the share of compensation allowed towards acquisition of the property. It is further contended that settlement deeds Nos.6992/2002 dated 27.12.2002 and 7002/2002 dated 28.12.2002 of Sub Registrar's Office, Alangad, whereby the property sought to be acquired, gifted to the 4^th respondent by the late father, are bogus one. The learned counsel for the petitioners relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in Vinod Kumar and Others v. District Magistrate, Mau and Others [2023 SCC OnLine SC 787], the decision of the Panjab and Haryana High Court in Nirmal Singh v. Union of India and Others [2012(2)ILR(Punjab & Haryana) 604], in Arun v. State of Maharashtra and Others[2017 (6) Mh.L.J. 612] and the decision of