CRP/2348/2024 of CHINNAMMAL Vs THE SPECIAL OFFICER (L.A) on 13 August 2026

ORDER

This is a dispute that has arisen between two claimants, namely the first claimant and the third claimant, regarding entitlement to compensation awarded in land acquisition proceedings. The third claimant is the Revision Petitioner, aggrieved by the order in LAOP No. 13 of 2013.

2. I have heard Mr. R. Veeramani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. G. Balasubramanian, learned counsel for the contesting second respondent, Mr. R. Vishnu, learned counsel for third respondent and Mr.P Sunil, learned Government Advocate for the first respondent.

3. The case of the revision petitioner as third claimant is that for the radial road scheme, lands were acquired by the Special Tahsildar, Tambaram and since there was a dispute with regard to title, ownership could not be conclusively determined and hence the claimants were referred to the Land Acquisition Tribunal in LAOP No. 13 of 2013. The factum of acquisition, the extent of the compensation awarded are not in dispute.It is only the entitlement to the said compensation amount that is under cloud. The third claimant claims absolute ownership to lands in Survey No. 474/2Cand stakes a claim to the entire compensation of Rs.23,67,610/-

4. However, the first claimant contends that the subject lands were Grama Natham lands and being the first occupier, the first claimant was issued with Patta and thereafter he has mutated the revenue records in his name. He further says that the subject matter of acquisition was not involved in any other litigation or court proceedings and that the claim of the third claimant was only under an agreement of sale. The first claimant also states that said sale agreement has lapsed by efflux of time and therefore the agreement itself is unenforceable and the agreement holder cannot claim that the land acquisition compensation to be paid to him.

5. Before the Land Acquisition Tribunal, the first claimant examined himself as CW1 and the third claimant examined herself as CW2. The first claimant exhibited Exs.C1 to C11 and the third claimant exhibited Exs.C12 to C20. No official witnesses were examined.

6. The Tribunal, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence held that though a preliminary decree came to be passed and confirmed on S.A.No.1151 of 2000, neither the first claimant nor the third claimant took any steps to file a final decree application and get possession of their respective entitlements by metes and bounds. Therefore, the Tribunal went by the preliminary decree granting 9/16th share to the first claimant and 1/16th share to the third claimant and accordingly directed distribution of the compensation amount. Per se, the order of the Tribunal does not appear to be erroneous or fallacious.

7. However, the core issue that should have been addressed is as to whether the lands in the possession of the first claimant or the third claimant were acquired. Even according to the Tribunal, no final decree has been passed and there is no division by metes and bounds. Therefore, a proper enquiry should have preceded the determination of the entitlement of the claimants, so as to see whose lands were taken possession of and if so, to what extent and thereafter, the compensation amount should have been accordingly distributed. Unfortunately, this aspect has not even been gone into by the Tribunal. The evidence adduced by the claimants also does not in any manner help their respective contentions.

8. In such view of the matter, I am inclined to set aside the order of the Land Acquisition Tribunal and remit the matter to it for fresh enquiry, giving liberty to both claimants to lead oral and documentary evidence and to substantiate that it was only their entitlements/lands that were taken possession of and therefore, compensation should be paid to them accordingly. Considering that the amount has already been deposited in Court and has been lying there for the past several years, the Tribunal shall undertake the exercise as directed herein above and dispose of the LAOP No.13 of 2013 on or before 31-12-2026. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed accordingly and the judgment and decree dated 23.01.2024 in LAOP.No.13 of 2013 is set aside. No costs. Connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 13.08.2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No ATA To

1. The Additional Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu.

2. The Special Officer (L.A), IT Exprssway Scheme, Tambaram.

P.B.BALAJI, J. ATA CRP No.2348 of 2024 13.08.2026