IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 16.06.2017 CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR C.R.P.(NPD). No.2679 of 2014
Dr.Hemanth Raj ... Petitioner ..Vs..
The Chief Manager(T)&Regional Officer-Chennai, National Highways Authority of India, 1/54-28,Butt Road, St.Thomas Mount, Chennai - 600 016. ... Respondent Prayer: This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 Constitution of India, against the refusal of the Subordinate Court at Tambaram to take on file and number UNLAOP SR.No.13575 of 2012, as seen from order dated 30.04.2014 made in Memo SR 2850 of 2014 in I.A.No.72 of 2012 in UNLAOP SR No.13575 of 2012, on the file of the Sub Court at Tambaram.
For petitioner : Mr.Srinath Sridevan For Respondent :Mr.B.Harikrishnan O R D E R Challenging the fair and decreetal order dated 30.04.2014 against the order passed in I.A.No.72 of 2012 in UNLAOP.SR.No.13575 of 2012 by the learned Subordinate Judge at Tambaram, to number UNLAOP SR.No.13575 of 2012, this Civil Revision Petition is filed.
2. According to the petitioner, originally the property comprised in S.No.161/2, situated in Pammal village belongs to one C.Venkatesan. Subsequently, the petitioner purchased the aforesaid property to an extent of 0.74 acres.The said property was under the acquisition proceedings. In the earlier round of litigation, the Revision Petitioner has filed Writ Petition No.18312 of 1999 before this Court. By order dated 25.04.2008, this Court dismissed the Writ Petition with a direction to the respondent/The Chief General Manager(T)&Regional Officer,National Highways Authority of India, Chennai is as follows:-
" to deposit the award amount stated to have been passed in these cases, if not already deposited, to the Court deposit as per Section 31(1)&(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with interest as per the provisions of the Act. In such event, it is open to the petitioner or the original owners to approach the competent Court for the purpose of resolving the dispute in receiving the award amount. No costs."
3. Thereafter, the respondent has deposited the award amount along with interest before the Executing Court. The petitioner has filed an application in I.A.No.72 of 2012 before the Court in unnumbered UNLAOP SR.No.13575 of 2012. But the Court below, dismissed the said application for the reason that the petitioner has not produced the relevant documents to prove that he is the subsequent purchaser of the property and also not added the vendor as a party in the said proceedings.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner represented before this Court, if an opportunity is given, the petitioner will satisfy the Court below by producing necessary documents in support of the contention made in the application.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that if the petitioner would satisfy the Court below, the respondent cannot have any serious objections to consider the relief as prayed for in the Interlocutory Application.
6. Considering the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and recording the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is inclined to set aside the order passed in I.A.No.72 of 2012 in UNLAOP.SR.No.13575 of 2012 and remand the matter back to the Court below to decide the application in I.A.No.72 of 2012 in UNLAOP.SR.No.13575 of 2012 afresh in accordance with law as early as possible, after providing opportunity to the parties concerned and pass orders within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
7. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs.
16.06.2017 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No nvi To The Sub Court at Tambaram.
D.KRISHNAKUMAR,J., nvi C.R.P.(NPD). No.2679 of 2014 16.06.2017