Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 5498 (MAD)

P. Natarajan v. The Special Tahsildar

2010-12-13

M.M.SUNDRESH

body2010
Judgment :- 1. The writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of mandamus, forbearing the respondent No.1 from paying the compensation amount to the respondents 3 and 4 for the lands acquired for the Chennai Airport Expansion Project in Survey Nos.281/1 and 2, 282, 284/1 and 2, at Kolappakkam Village, Sriperumputhur Taluk, Kanchipuram District. 2. As per the notification issued under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997, the lands have been acquired in Kolappakkam Village, Sriperumputhur Taluk, Kanchipuram District. The notification was approved by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.97, Transport Department, dated 05.06.2008. The lands belonging to the one Parthasarathy Chettiar, son of Manickam Chettiar, were also acquired along with other lands. The said Parthasarathy Chettiar died on 08.08.2002. The Writ Petitioner is one of the legal heirs of the said Parthasarathy Chettiar, out of the other legal heirs. The respondents 3 and 4 are the power holders of the writ petitioner and other legal heirs. 3. After the completion of the land acquisition proceedings, the writ petitioner gave a representation, followed by a legal notice stating that the power of attorney executed in favour of the respondents 3 and 4 have been cancelled. The legal notice was issued on behalf of the legal representatives including the petitioner of the deceased Parthasarathy Chettiar excepting one person. Thereafter, the petitioner has come before this Court to file the present writ petition. 4. The above said facts would indicate that the legal heirs of the deceased Parthasarathy Chettiar have executed a Power of Attorney in favour of the respondents 3 and 4. It is their case excepting one of them that the said documents executed have been cancelled. It is further to be seen from the records that the first respondent also sent a letter to the respondents 3 and 4 stating that in view of the representations given by the legal heirs of the deceased Parthasarathy Chettiar dated 17.09.2008, 24.09.2008 and 11.11.2008, the compensation amount cannot be given to the respondents 3 and 4 representing the legal heirs. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents 3 and 4 submitted that the petitioner and other legal heirs have received substantial amount on 10.01.2000 and 07.10.2005. The learned counsel further submitted that the Power of Attorney executed in favour of the respondents 3 and 4 have not been cancelled so far. 6. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents 3 and 4 submitted that the petitioner and other legal heirs have received substantial amount on 10.01.2000 and 07.10.2005. The learned counsel further submitted that the Power of Attorney executed in favour of the respondents 3 and 4 have not been cancelled so far. 6. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the dispute raised by the petitioner, the issue will have to be decided by the respondent No.1 by exercising the powers available under Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997. The learned counsel for the respondents 3 and 4 also submitted that the respondents 3 and 4 will be in a position to establish their case before the competent Civil Court. 7. Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 specifically provides that in a case where there are dispute as to the persons to whom the compensation amount is payable, the Collector may refer the said dispute for the decision of the Court. The said Section deals with the apportionment and entitlement of the amount. Therefore, the respondent No.1 or the District Collector, as the case may be is directed to refer the question of payment of compensation between the legal heirs of the deceased Parthasarathy Chettiar and the respondents 3 and 4 to the Competent Civil Court under Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997. It is open to the parties to raise all their contentions before the said Court including the jurisdiction of the Court to go into the dispute between the parties. 8. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.