MINOR ADITHYA Vs. SPECIAL DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. K.C. Vinoth for M/s. L. Chandra Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Mr. Digvijayapandian, learned Additional Government Pleader and Mr. S. Thangavel, learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent. The 2nd respondent is the father of the petitioner and he is only a formal party and hence, no hearing is required in respect of the 2nd respondent.

(2.) The petitioner has come before this Court for a direction to direct the 1st respondent to pass orders on the representation dated 25.07.2011 seeking apportionment of compensation to the extent of petitioner's right in the said ancestral property mentioned therein within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

(3.) The grievance of the petitioner appears to be that he is the minor son born to Venkatachalapathy and Sumithra Devi on 25.02.1997 as some misunderstanding arose between the parents consequent upon the birth of the petitioner and even prior to that, they have been living separately. Therefore, he filed this writ petition for a direction seeking apportionment of the share to the eligible extent of the property of his grand father Rangasamy Gounder who died intestate pursuant to the award arising out of land acquisition proceedings, in view of the fact that the petitioner's father's attitude being improper and irregular thereby resulting in the said property being snatched away illegally, denying the statutory rights conferred upon the petitioner. There were certain claim of rights which were pleaded and in such circumstances, the petitioner has made a representation on 25.07.2011 addressed to the 1st respondent and sought to restrain the authority from disbursing the compensation though not in its entirety atleast to the extent to which the petitioner would be entitled to despite receipt of the said representation the authorities are taking effective steps to disburse denying and depriving the petitioner's accrued rights derived from the ancestral nucleus and, therefore, having no other remedy, petitioner is before this Court invoking its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner has also pleaded that he had approached the Civil forum in O.S. No: 426 of 2011 on the file of the Subordiante Judge of Tiruppur for a decree of division and partition of the properties in to six equal shares by metes and bounds and also for a permanent injunction. In the said suit in I.A. No: 897 of 2011 an interim injunction has been granted restraining the second respondent herein and the other legal heirs viz. Tmt. Vijayakumari and Sridevi (D.1 and D.2), the other sisters of the 2nd respondent in any manner encumbering or creating any charge on the suit properties apart from taking steps to implead the first respondent herein as party respondent in the said suit. However, in view of the first respondent hastening to process the disbursal of the award amount which is said to have been obtained behind the back of the petitioner and his mother, the petitioner is before this Court.