2025:MHC:2948

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 15.12.2025

CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

and

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

W.A.No.2570 of 2022

M/s.Mahaveer Metal Industries,

A regd. Partnership Firm, rep.

By its Partner Mr.Chapalal,

No.182, Mint Street,

Chennai – 600 006. ... Appellant

Vs.

1. The Competent Authority,

Special District Revenue Officer (L.A.)

National Highways,

Kancheepuram & Thiruvallur District,

at Kancheepuram

2. Shanthilal,

3. Canara Bank,

Karanodi Branch,

Karanode,

Chennai. ... Respondents

Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the final order passed by this Court in W.P.No.23788 of 2004 dated 19.04.2022

For Appellant : Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan,

Senior Counsel

for Mr.C.V.Vijayakumar

For Respondents : Mr.Vadivelu Deenadayalan, Addl.Govt.Pleader for R1 Mr.S.Rameshkumar for R2 Mr.P.Raghunathan for Mr.T.S.Gopalan & Co. for R3

J U D G M E N T

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.

Under assail is the writ order dated 19.04.2022 passed in W.P.No.23788 of 2004.

2. Writ petitioner is the appellant before this Court. Writ Petition has been instituted challenging the order dated 29.03.2004 issued by the competent authority and Special District Revenue Officer (Land Acquisition)

National Highways, Kancheepuram and Tiruvallur Districts.

3. It is not in dispute between the parties that the subject land detailed in the writ proceedings were acquired by the National Highways Authorities under the provisions of National Highways Act, 1956. Acquisition proceedings were completed in the year 2003 and the compensation determined by authorities was paid to the 2^nd respondent, Mr.Shanthilal on

27.02.2003.

4. A counter claim was raised by the appellant mainly on the ground that the subject property belongs to partnership firm. Therefore, the compensation ought not to have been paid in favour of the 2^nd respondent.

5. Learned Senior Counsel Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan appearing on behalf of the appellant would mainly contend that the authorities are expected to determine the rights of the parties, more specifically, in the present case, rights of the appellant as a partner in the partnership firm. The subject property acquired was purchased from and out of the partnership funds. Therefore, the appellant is entitled for compensation. The authorities erroneously paid the compensation in favour of the 2^nd respondent, despite the objections raised by the appellant. There is no finding in the order impugned dated 29.03.2004 that the 2^nd respondent is entitled for compensation nor the disentitlement of the appellant has been recorded in the said order. Therefore, the writ Court has not considered the issues in a right perspective and the writ appeal is to be allowed.

6. Learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent would oppose by stating that the 2^nd respondent produced the title document in respect of the subject property acquired. On verification of the title document, compensation was settled in favour of the 2^nd respondent. Even in the impugned order, there is a finding that the title document would show the name of the 2^nd respondent, Thiru.A.Shanthilal only. Therefore, the writ appeal is to be rejected.

7. By reply, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant would place reliance on Section 3-H of the National Highways Act and would submit that sub-section (4) to section 3-H warrants the Land Acquisition Officer to refer the dispute before the civil Court of original jurisdiction within the limits of whose jurisdiction the land is situate. In the present case, the appellant raised a dispute that the property belongs to partnership firm and on receipt of such dispute, the Land Acquisition Officer ought to have made a reference to the civil Court under Sub-Section (4) to section 3-H of the National Highways Act. Therefore, the Writ Court ought to have adjudicated the said issue in the context of provision of Indian Partnership Act, 1932, with reference to Section 3-H of the National Highways Act, 1956.

8. This Court heard