P SOLOMON FRANCIS Vs. COLLECTOR KANCHEEPURAM DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners seek for issuance of a Mandamus directing the respondents to disburse the sum of Rs.56,06,401/- due and payable to them under Award No.6 of 2013 dated 30.04.2013 passed by the first respondent along with interest and also to refer the award to the jurisdictional Civil Court as contemplated under Section 20 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act for enhancement of the compensation amount.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioners that the second petitioner has purchased the land mesuring an extent of 4.5 acres in Survey No.4/part, Karunguzhipallam Village, Thiruporur Taluk, Kancheepuram District by a registered sale deed dated 10.11.2008 and from the date of such purchase, the petitioners have been in possession and enjoyment of the property. The said land purchased by the second petitioner is classified as Grama Natham in the revenue records. After such purchase, the petitioners have also developed the property and put up a building. While so, on 22.01.2009, the first respondent issued a notice invoking Section 15 (2) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, hereinafter called as the Act, intending to acquire the lands of the petitioners measuring an extent of 30 cents or 1197 square meters for the purpose of formation of six lane I.T. Expressway, Phase II for a distance of 25.3 kilometers from Siruseri Junction, Thiruporur Taluk to Poonjeri Junction in the East Coast Road in Thirukkalikundram Taluk, Kancheepuram District. The substance of the notice was also published in one issue of local daily on 30.01.2009. The said notice dated 22.01.2009 was addressed to Mr. D. Peter Francis and the first petitioner, being the son of Mr. Peter Francis, when the fact remains that it is the second petitioner who is the owner of the lands. According to the petitioners, Mr. Peter Francis died on 03.11.2012. The second petitioner is the wife of Peter Francis and the petitioners 1 and 3 and her children. On such notice, the petitioners sent a preliminary objection dated 06.02.2009 followed by additional objections on 01.04.2009. Inspite of such objections, the respondents proceeded to issue a notice dated 30.07.2010 to take possession of the property. On 04.02.2013, the first respondent issued a notice to the petitioners under Section 19 (5) and 19 (7) of the Act and called upon them to appear for an enquiry on 18.02.2013. The petitioners appeared before the first respondent and submitted their objections dated 15.02.2013. The first respondent, without considering such objections, passed an award dated 30.04.2013 in Award No.6 of 2013 and determined the compensation payable to the petitioners at Rs.56,06,401/- under Section 19 (3) and 19 (6) of the Act and such intimation was also served on the petitioners. Thereafter, as directed by the respondents, the first petitioner produced all the documents to the respondents and the petitioners were intimated that the compensation amount would be disbursed within a few days. The petitioners also, by their letter dated 14.06.2013, sought for reference for enhancement of compensation amount before the competent Civil Court as contemplated under Section 20 (1) of the Act and accepted to receive the compensation amount under protest. As there was no communication received from the respondents regarding payment of compensation amount, the first petitioner submitted a representation dated 09.07.2013 requesting to disburse the compensation amount. Even thereafter, the respondents did not disburse the compensation amount, hence, the petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court and filed the present writ petition.

(3.) The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitoiners would contend that the second petitioner purchased the lands in question by means of a registered sale deed dated 10.11.2008 and from that date, the petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of the lands in question. In the sale deed, the description of the property clearly indicates that there is a building in the land. Further, the description of the property indicates that the lands in question is classified in the revenue records as Gramanatham and it is a private property of the petitioners. Therefore, at no stretch of imagination, it could be stated that it is a poromboke land and it is vested with the Government, as has been contended by the respondents in the counter filed before this Court in this writ petition. The classification of the property would only go to show that it is a land meant for the purpose of dwelling by putting up a building therein. The petitioners are also utilising the property for their dwelling purpose. Merely because the petitoiners did not obtain patta, it will not disentitle them to seek for compensation for having acquired their land. There are atleast three house sites in the property in question as on date. Even though the sale deed was executed in favour of the second petitioner on 10.11.2008, the sale deed was not released immediately on the ground that the value of the property reflected in the sale deed has to be evaluated and ultimately, the sale deed was returned only in the year 2009.