The Executive Engineer And Administrative Officer, v. Masthan Beevi,
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 23.06.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI C.R.P.(MD)Nos.1509 to 1511 of 2021 and C.M.P.(MD)Nos.8304, 8305 & 8307 of 2021 The Executive Engineer and Administrative Officer, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Ramanathapuram.
...Petitioner in all C.R.Ps.
Vs.
1.Masthan Beevi 2.Jeenath Beevi 3.Negamath Nisha 4.Rosan Beevi 5.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ramanathapuram.
...Respondents in C.R.P.(MD)No.1509/2021
1.Ahmed Jalal 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ramanathapuram.
...Respondents in C.R.P.(MD)No.1510/2021
1/6
1.Aavul Sariba 2.Raja Mohamed 3.Alla Pitchai 4.Syed Mohamed
...Respondents in C.R.P.(MD)No.1511/2021
COMMON PRAYER: Civil Revision Petitions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to allow these Civil Revision Petitions and set aside the orders dated 26.11.2019, 26.11.2019 and 14.11.2019, passed in E.P.Nos.13 of 2011, 18 of 2012 and 38 of 2010 in L.A.O.P.Nos.1 of 2006, 14 of 2002 and 4 of 2003, respectively, on the file of the Sub-Court, Ramanathapuram. (*)For Petitioner : Mr.A.Kannan [In C.R.P.(MD)Nos.1509 & 1510/2021] For Petitioner : Mr.R.Janarthanan [In C.R.P.(MD)No.1511/2021] For Respondents 1 to 4 : Mr.V.Meenakshi Sundaram In C.R.P.(MD)Nos.1509 & 1511/2021] For Respondent No.1 : Mr.V.Meenakshi Sundaram [In C.R.P.(MD)Nos.1510/2021] For R5 : Mr.B.Saravanan Additional Government Pleader [In C.R.P.(MD)No.1509/2021 & 1511/2021] For R2 : Mr.B.Saravanan Additional Government Pleader [In C.R.P.(MD)No.1510/2021] COMMON ORDER 2/6
These petitions have been filed seeking to set aside the orders dated 26.11.2019, 26.11.2019 and 14.11.2019, passed in E.P.Nos.13 of 2011, 18 of 2012 and 38 of 2010 in L.A.O.P.Nos.1 of 2006, 14 of 2002 and 4 of 2003, respectively, on the file of the Sub-Court, Ramanathapuram.
2.Since all these Civil Revision Petitions arise out of the orders in the Execution Proceedings for not depositing the land acquisition amount, these Civil Revision Petitions are taken up together and are disposed of, by this common order. 3.Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents are land owners and their lands were acquired for housing board and the compensation awarded by the Courts were not deposited, thereby the respondents filed Execution Petitions, in which both the petitioner as well as respondents filed their calculation memos. The calculation memos filed by the petitioner was rejected and the calculation memos of the respondents were accepted, awarding Rs.1,93,128/-, Rs, 1,84,798/- and Rs.2,00,044/- as compensation in E.P.Nos.13 of 2011, 18 of 2012 and 38 of 2010, respectively.
Challenging the orders in the Execution Petitions, the present Civil Revision Petitions have been filed. 4.Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondents are entitled for interest only after 2001 and not after the 4(1) notification.
stipulated therein, failing which with 15% interest, which is untenable and on the said sole ground, these Civil Revision Petitions have been filed. 5.Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondents would submit that the calculation memos filed by them were perused by the trial Court. He further submits that the respondent landlords are entitled to interest with regard to the award amount as well as solatium and the interest for solatium were rightly calculated by the trial Court and hence, the orders impugned herein need not be interfered with. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of these Civil Revision Petitions. 6.Heard the learned Counsel on either side.
7.Admittedly, the respondents are the landlords and their lands were acquired for housing board, for which compensation were awarded in L.A.O.P.Nos.1 of 2006, 14 of 2002 and 4 of 2003. Since the compensation awarded by the Court below were not deposited, the respondents filed Execution Petitions, in which both the petitioner as well as respondents filed their calculation memos. The calculation memos filed by the petitioner was rejected and the calculation memos of the respondents were accepted and the trial Court awarded Rs.1,93,128/-, Rs,1,84,798/- and Rs.2,00,044/- as compensation in E.P.Nos.13 of 2011, 18 of 2012 and 38 of 2010, respectively. However, the petitioner did not demonstrate the case before this Court. In the absence of demonstration or pointing out the error in arriving at the 4/6
compensation, the orders of the Court below cannot be interfered with and the same is contrary to Land Acquisition Act.
8.Accordingly, these Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed and the petitioner is directed to deposit the entire respective E.P. amounts without any further interest within a period of six [6] weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the petitioner is directed to pay the compensation with 12% interest. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-III) (*)Modified as per order of this Court dated 22/07/2025 made in CRP.(MD)Nos.
1509 to 1511 of 2021.
// True Copy // / /2025 Sub Assistant Registrar ( CS-I / II / III / IV ) MR To 1.The Subordinate Judge, The Sub-Court, Ramanathapuram.
2.The Section Officer, VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, 5/6
Madurai.
+1 CC to M/s.SPL GP ( SR-36558,36554,36557[F] dated 24/06/2025 ) +3 CC to M/s.A.KANNAN, Advocate ( SR-36412,36413,36414[F] dated 24/06/2025 ) C.R.P.(MD)Nos.1509 to 1511 of 2021 23.06.2025 RA - ( 19.08.2025) 6P/8C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023. 6/6