M MANI Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, DINDIGUL DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in these four writ petitions are close relatives viz., the petitioners in W.P.(MD).Nos.1807 & 1808 of 2011 are the sisters of the petitioner in W.P. No. 80 of 2011 and the petitioner in W.P.(MD) No. 1300 of 2011 is the nephew of the petitioners in the other writ petitions.

(2.) The writ petition in W.P.(MD). No. 80 of 2011 is filed by Mr. M. Mani, S/o. late Muthunarayanasamy. He was running a hotel by name Hotel Doss at Ayyaloor and the hotel was situated in Survey No. 935/6. The claim of the said petitioner is that he had constructed the building in the year 1975 and has been in possession of the said building and also paying house tax, electricity consumption charges, etc. His name also finds in the village revenue records. The said building was acquired for the purpose of expanding the National Highway No. 45 in Trichy -Dindigul Section. After the completion of the acquisition, the compensation was arrived at Rs. 12,15,853/-as certified by the competent authority. The compensation is yet to be disbursed to the said petitioner. The petitioner was not satisfied with the rate of compensation and therefore, he sent a representation, dated 21.12.2010, to the District Collector, Dindigul, seeking for a higher compensation for the land acquired and therefore, he sought for a reference of his petition for higher compensation and that W.P. when it came up for admission on 05.01.2011, notice of motion was ordered in the said petition. On notice from this Court, the Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Dindigul has given a reply dated 04.01.2011 stating that the petitioner had not submitted the death certificate showing the death of his father late Muthunaranayasamy and also the legal heir certificate for claiming the said property and it was also pointed out that he had not produced the original house tax receipts and E.P. consumption receipts for having enjoyed the facility in the building situated in Survey No. 935/6. Therefore, after the petitioner submits those applications, his application for reference for higher compensation will be considered.

(3.) In the meanwhile, the two sisters of the petitioner in W.P.(MD). No. 80 of 2011, viz., M/s. Annapooranam, who is unmarried and said to be residing in the same building, until it was taken over by the Highways filed W.P.(MD). No. 1808 of 2011 and Saraswathi, filed W.P.(MD). No. 1807 of 2011 claiming that the property in question belongs to the joint family and in respect of acquisition made, the matter should be referred to the Civil Court for determining the rights of the legal heirs in terms of Section 3-H(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). Section 3-H(4) of the Act states that if any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the amount or any part thereto or to any person to whom the same or any part thereto is payable, the competent authority shall refer the dispute to the decision of the Principal District Court of original jurisdiction within the limits of whose jurisdiction the land is situated.