1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 31.10.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.(MD)No.11561 of 2011 & M.P.(MD)Nos.1 & 2 of 2011 1.Ammaiyakkal 2.Sellammal 3.Marayee : Petitioners Vs. 1.The District Collector, Collectorate, Karur District, Karur. 2.The Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Salem-Karur Railway Line, R.D.O. Office Campus, Karur. 3.Karuppannan : Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to refer the dispute to the Civil Court as per Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by considering our representation dated 29.09.2011. For Petitioners :Mr.D.Selvanayagam For Respondents :Mr.M.Govindan for R1 & R2 Spl.GP Mr.Vijayshankar for R3 ORDER The three petitioners are sisters and the contesting third respondent is their brother. As between them there is a partition suit pending before the Principal District Munsif Court, Karur in O.S.No.345 of 2006. A preliminary decree was passed by the civil Court on 19.08.2010. By the preliminary decree, the petitioners were also given share as well as the third respondent. In the present case, the dispute is with reference to the S.No.71/C. 2. It is admitted that the said land has been acquired by the State Government and the third respondent protested against the acquisition and got a reference under Section 18 of the Land https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 Acquisition Act, 1894. The said reference was taken up by the jurisdictional reference Court namely Principal Subordinate Court, Karur in L.A.O.P.No.14 of 2011. By the judgment and decree dated 11.03.2011, the L.A.O.P. Court enhanced the compensation at the rate of Rs.75/- per sq.feet together with the solatium interest for the enhanced compensation. 3. The petitioners at the relevant time were not parties to the land acquisition proceedings including the LAOP. Their contention was that the third respondent was taking care of those proceedings and they were kept in dark and they were not living in the ancestral house and subsequent to the death of their father late Kandasamy, they also obtained legal heir certificate from the Tahsildar, Karur showing that they are the legal heirs of the late Kandasamy and they have a stake in the property, in which the acquisition has been made and an enhanced compensation has been granted. 4. Even after the LAOP judgment delivered, on 29.09.2011 the petitioners sent a representation to the District Collector seeking for a reference under Section 30 of the Land acquisition Act and after sending the representation, they have filed the present writ petition to consider their representation. 5. Notice of motion was ordered on 04.10.2011 and on notice, the learned Special Government Pleader appears for the respondents 1 and 2. 6. Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 reads as follows:- "30. Dispute as to apportionment:- When the amount of compensation has been settled under Section 11, if any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the same or any part thereof, or as to the persons to whom the same or any part thereof is payable, the Collector may refer such dispute to the decision of the Court." 7. Section 30 is only a enabling provision and if there is a dispute regarding apportionment of amount of compensation, the Collector can refer the dispute to the Civil Court. Though there is no limitation prescribed under Section 30 as that of Section 18, it should be done within a reasonable time. 8. The Supreme Court while considering the distinction between Sections 18 and 30, of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 vide its judgment in P.K.Sreekantan V. P.Sreekumaran Nair reported in (2006) 13 SCC 574 in paragraph number 16 it held as follows: "16.However, it is to be noted that there is no time-limit for seeking reference under Section 30 of the Act, though it should always be done within a reasonable time. The reasonableness of time flows form the need for a finality to judicial proceedings." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 9. Even, no time limit is prescribed, one has to presume that there must be a reasonable request at least when the matter was pending before the LAOP. In the present case, the petitioners had got a preliminary decree including a share in the property, for which there is no dispute regarding their entitlement, which has to be ascertained by the civil Court. Since the civil Court determined the rights of the parties and final decree is yet to be passed, it is for the petitioners to work out their remedy in the pending partition suit and not for seeking any independent reference. 10. The request made by the petitioners cannot be countenanced as no dispute was raised at the time of the award or at the time when the matter was pending before the LAOP Court and the petitioners' right to seek a share in the joint family property has to be worked out only before the civil Court, in which final decree is yet to be passed. 11. The petitioners have not made out any case. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed with the above observation. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (A.E) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The District Collector, Collectorate, Karur District, Karur. 2.The Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Salem-Karur Railway Line, R.D.O. Office Campus, Karur. +2 CCs to Mr.V.Vijay Shankar, Advocate (SR.No.37479 & 37618) +1 CC to Special Government Pleader (SR.No.37358) Order made in W.P.(MD)No.11561 of 2011 & M.P.(MD)Nos.1 & 2 of 2011 31.10.2011 jikr NSV/9.11.11/3P/6C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/