National Highways Dept Cannot Deny Payment Of Compensation Amount Merely Based On Objection Due To Title Dispute: Madras High Court

Justice N Satish Kumar noted that the objection was made after a long time which showed an attempt to make inroads the property sold in 1972.

“This Court is of the view that the very nature of the objection made after long number of years and the very conduct of the third respondent shows that an attempt has been made for the first time to make inroads into the property sold in the year 1972. Be that as it may, as the petitioner is having better title and the sale deed has not been annulled by any competent Court, the Highways Department cannot deny the compensation amount merely based on the objection,” the court observed.

The court was hearing a plea filed by G Prem Kumar seeking directions to the Chengalpettu District Collector and the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) to disburse and release the compensation award under Section 19 of Tamil Nadu Highways Act 2001 for acquiring his property for East Coast Road widening.

Kumar submitted that he had purchased and registered the property by a sale deed and his vendor had purchased the property from one Mohammed Haneefa from a partnership firm viz.,RMC Traders by way of registered document. He informed that after acquiring the property, it continued to be in his possession which he worked in the USA. Later, the Highways Department acquired a certain portion of land for widening the road taking advantage of absentee landlords.

Kumar submitted that one Sivaganesan (3^rd Respondent) had trespassed onto the property and even after filing a police complaint, there was no action taken by the authorities. He added that the possession was restored only after the court's intervention. However, the said Sivaganesan had not raised an objection to the Highways Department to not disburse the compensation amount which prompted Kumar to file the present petition.

Sivaganesan, on the other hand, submitted that the sale deed through which Kumar's vendor had purchased the property in 1979 was not valid since the Power of Attorney was executed in favor of f one A.E.Ramajayam by other two partners in their own and personal capacity and not relating to the firm. He thus argued that there was an ongoing title dispute with respect to the property and since there was a specific mechanism under the Tamil Nadu Highways Act 2001 for disbursal of compensation, the present petition ought to be dismissed.

The court noted that while the respondent had not disputed the execution of power of attorney, it was argued that the Power of Attorney was executed in the personal capacity of the partners. The court noted that this contention was raised for the first time only in 2023.

Thus, noting that the petitioner's title had not been annulled by any court yet, the court directed the department to disburse the amount. The court added that if the respondent succeeded in the civil suit with respect to title, the petitioner was bound to return the compensation amount with interest at the prevailing rate of bank interest.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr.G.Vijay Anand, Senior Counsel, for G.Vijay Anand Associates

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. A.Selvendran, Special Government Pleader, Mr.Krishna Ravindran for Mr.P.Kavin Prabhu

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 375

Case Title: G Prem Kumar v District Collector

Case No: WP.No.11061 of 2024