ORDER

Heard both sides.

2.For river linking project, the petition mentioned lands in

Kesavasamuthram Village, Chernamahadevi Taluk were acquired. The lands were purchased by one Sudalai Muthu Konar and one Palavesa Konar. Sudalai Muthu Konar passed away. He was survived by his son Krishna Konar. The revenue record in respect of the petition mentioned lands came to be mutated in favour Krishna Konar. Krishna Konar had two wives namely, Esakkiammal and Krishanammal. Through Esakkiammal, two daughters were born namely, Gomathi and Umayal. Through Krishanammal, as many as nine children were born. One of them was Sudalai Muthu Konar (junior). Sudalai Muthu Konar got married to one Krishanammal. Sudalai Muthu Konar had a daughter by name Rajam. The said Rajam got married to Raj / fourth respondent herein. Sudalai Muthu Konar (Junior) passed away in the year 2004. Rajam passed away in the year 2012. Rajam and Raj had two sons namely, the respondents 5 and 6 herein.

3.The authorities decided to acquire the lands through private negations. They obtained consent from Chokkalingam, Subramanian Govindhan and Paramasivan who are the brothers of Sudalai Muthu Konar (junior). It is relevant to note here that even though Sudalai Muthu Konar had passed away by then, his daughter / Rajam was very much alive, no consent was taken either from Rajam or the daughters whether born through the first wife or the second wife. The consent was taken on 12.11.2009. Whileso, the entire amount of Rs.37,77,522/- was straightaway paid to the respondents 4 to 6 herein on 16.02.2022. When the petitioner herein came to know the same, he raised objections and since it was not considered, the present writ petition came to be filed.

4.The stand of the respondents is that since the revenue record reflected the name of Sudalai Muthu Konar (Junior), the entire amount was directly paid to him. In normal circumstances, I would not fault the authorities in going by the names set out in the revenue record. But in this case, the authorities cannot said to be so innocent. If that be so, they need not have or would not have taken consent from Chokkalingam, Subramanian Govindhan and Paramasivan who are the sons of Krishna Konar born through the second wife / Krishanammal. It is beyond dispute that the property was not purchased by Raj or his sons. They had inherited the property. Even Sudalai Muthu Konar (junior) did not buy the property. He in turn inherited it from his father / Krishna Konar. Krishna Konar in turn inherited the property from his father / Sudalai

Muthu Konar (Senior).

5.Though I repeatedly queried as to when the mutation in favour

Sudalai Muthu Konar (junior) was made and whether it was preceded by notice to the other legal heirs of Krishna Konar, there is no definite answer forthcoming. In these circumstances, one has to necessarily invoke Section 76 of Central Act No.30 of 2013. Section 76 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,

Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 reads as follows:-

“76. Dispute as to apportionment.–When the amount of compensation has been settled, if any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the same or any part thereof, or as to the persons to whom the same or any part thereof is payable, the

Collector may refer such disputes to the Authority.

6.The expression “authority” is defined in Section 3(f) of the Act.

It reads as follows:-

“3.Definitions (f) -Authority? means the Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority established under section 51;”

7.Section 51 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 is as follows:-

“51. Establishment of Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority.

authority conferred on it by or under this Act.

(2) The appropriate Government shall also specify in the notification referred to in sub-section (1) the areas within which the Authority may exercise jurisdiction for entertaining