Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1279 (MAD)

T. S. Sumathi v. The District Collector & Others

2009-04-20

M.JAICHANDREN

body2009
Judgment :- 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the award No.10/98-99, dated 210. 2003, passed by the second respondent in pursuance of the notice No.RCA 1052/98, dated 12. 1999, in respect of the acquisition proceedings initiated, under Section 41 of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Scheme Act, 1978, relating to the land, measuring about 25. 0 Hectares of land in Survey No.652/1, 2, 3 and 5 in Thanigaipolur Village in Vellore District. 2. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that in spite of she being a legal heir of her father T.Sundarabashyam, the land acquisition proceedings had been initiated only against the third respondent, T.S.Ravi, who is her brother. Therefore, the land acquisition proceedings is in violation of the principles of natural justice, as well as the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Act, 1978. 3. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing for the first and second respondents have submitted that the writ petition filed by the third respondent, in W.P.No.29439 of 2003, had been dismissed by this Court, on 210. 2003. 4. It has also been pointed out that in paragraph-6 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the second respondent, it has been stated that the second respondent had passed the Award No.10/98-99, dated 08.03.1999, holding that the third respondent, T.S.Ravi, is the owner of the land in question, as found from the Revenue Records. The award amount of Rs.2,21,020/- is kept in a Revenue Deposit. It has also been stated that the petitioner is at liberty to make an appropriate claim, with regard to the award amount, by placing all the relevant records before the second respondent enabling him to conduct a proper enquiry and to pass necessary orders. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that it would suffice if the petitioner is permitted to make necessary claims before the second respondent, with regard to the amount of compensation lying in Revenue Deposit in respect of the land in question. 6. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that it would suffice if the petitioner is permitted to make necessary claims before the second respondent, with regard to the amount of compensation lying in Revenue Deposit in respect of the land in question. 6. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents 1 and 2, the petitioner is permitted to make a necessary representation along with the relevant records, if any, before the second respondent, with regard to her claim of her share in the award amount in relation to the land in question, within a period of 15 days from today and on receipt of such representation, the second respondent is to conduct an enquiry and to pass orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law, after giving necessary opportunity to all the persons concerned, within a period of 12 weeks thereafter. No costs.