SUGUNADEVI Vs. THE COLLECTOR OF CHENNAI,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner had come forward with the present Writ Petition seeking for a mandamus, directing the respondents to enhance the compensation payable together with interest in respect of the acquisition of the petitioner's property bearing Old Door No. 75, New No. 4. Valmiki Street, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai -600041. The case of the petitioner is that the property in question is a patta land owned by her husband, who died in the year 1972 and thereafter, the property was enjoyed by her and her children. While so, on 17.8.2002 the respondents forcibly vacated her family from the said premises for the purpose of widening the road without adopting the due process of law. Immediately, the petitioner had preferred a Writ Petition in W.P. No. 34014 of 2002. This Court by an order dated 14.11.2002, directed the first respondent herein to assess the compensation both for the land and building and to settle the compensation.

(2.) AGGRIEVED by the said order, the third respondent preferred a Writ Appeal in W.A. No. 2337 of 2003. A Division Bench of this Court by an order dated 8.8.2006 dismissed the said Writ Appeal. Thereafter, since the respondents did not comply with the original order dated 14.11.2002 passed in W.P. No. 34014 of 2002, she was constrained to file a Contempt Petition in C.P. No. 190 of 2007. During the pendency of the said Contempt Petition, the third respondent herein in its proceedings dated 28.1.2008, stated that the first respondents had given a proposal to work out the value of the land and building together with interest at 12% per annum payable for the acquisition of the land owned by her. However by he said proceedings, the third respondent herein stated that no interest could be payable to the land owner. Thereafter, the petitioner was paid the compensation by way of cheque dated 19.3.2008.

(3.) COUNTER affidavit had been filed on Behalf of the respondents, wherein it has been evicted out that after due notice to the petitioner, she had been evicted and later the compensation amount had been paid. The petitioner is only the encroacher and hence she is not entitled for any interest. Further, the Act does not provide for any interest on Compensation. Thus, the counter affidavit seeks for the dismissal of the Writ Petition.