The petitioners in L.A.O.P.No. 6 of 1997 are the claimants 24 to 26 in L.A.O.P.No. 8 of 1990 and they are legal heirs of one Mr.Krishnan. After the death of said Krishnan, a reference was made in respect of property in Survey Nos.489/4,5,7,9 and 10 in LAOP No.6 of 1997. The first respondent herein filed the I.A.No.7 of 2006 for deletion of survey No.489/5,7 and 9. On the ground that enhanced compensation had already been paid to one Balu in L.A.O.P.No.8 of 1990 for the very same properties. The petitioner filed counter affidavit and submitted that the property in question belonged jointly to Balu and Krishnan. A reference was made in respect of L.A.O.P.No.8 of 1980 in the name of said Krishnan who was not a party in the said L.A.O.P.
After the death of said Krishnan, the petitioners are entitled to receive compensation. The first respondent herein again seek deletion of the properties as no property reference was made in the L.A.O.P.No.8 of 1980. The first respondent wrongly paid compensation to the said Balu. It is for him to recover the same from the said Balu.
The learned Judge considering the above said affidavit and counter affidavit allowed an application and deleted the properties in survey No.489/5,7 and 9 against the present civil revision petition is filed.
Heard Mr.T.Murugamanikkam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.T.Jayakamaraj, learned Government Advocate, appearing for R1 and Mr.R.Jayaseelan, learned counsel appearing for R19.
From the materials on record we are of the view that it is an admitted case of the first respondent that the properties in survey Nos.489/4,5,67,9 and 10 are in the name of joint names of Balu and Krishnan. It is also not in dispute that reference in respect of L.A.O.P.No.8 of 1990 was made only in the name of Balu. On coming to know that some of the owners land were not neglected in the earlier reference made.
Subsequently, a reference was also made in L.A.O.P.No.6 of 1997. In the said L.A.O.P., the petitioners were made as a party by making wrong payment to one of the joint owner, the respondent can deprive the petitioner's compensation if they are eligible for the compensation land acquired. The learned Judge failed to consider that Balu and Krishnan are the joint owners, without passing any order of the aforementioned, ...cannot be against the ....joint owner or his legal heirs. It is for the petitioners to prove their title by filing documents. With the above direction the civil revision petition is allowed.