In a partition deed Schedule A alloted to party-1 and schedule B to party-2 whereas schedule C was declared as joint property which is to be partitioned later equally but at the last page schedule C was strike off by party 1 before registration where as the contents remained as it was. After three decades same schedule C was acquired by national highways. During preparation of award sons of party 2 claimed to the sons of party 1 that their names should be also there in the award and the sons of party 1 didn't objected their names to be added in the award as they were not aware of the strike off in the partition deed as the original deed was in the custody of the sons of party 2. Also they filed writ petition for enhancement of compensation jointly.Later after disbursement of compensation in the joint account of party 1 and 2 somehow party 1 got the xerox of partition deed and found that strike off. Party 1 objected to the competent authority of land acquisition. After proper verification and Hearing proceeding competent authority recover back the compansation amount and paid entirely to party-1 sons. After that sons of party 2 filed writ in the high court. What will happen???

Detailed Legal Analysis

In this scenario, the outcome of the sons of party-2's writ petition in the high court will significantly depend on the nature of the arguments presented and the legal principles involved regarding property rights, the validity of the partition deed, and the process of land acquisition.

Here are some key points to consider regarding the situation:

• Legality of the Partition Deed: The partition deed's validity is crucial. Since Schedule C was explicitly struck off before registration, it indicates that party-1 had no obligation to recognize it as joint property. Under the Indian Registration Act, 1908, a registered document has a presumption of authenticity, but alterations made before registration can affect its validity (Section 60).
• Land Acquisition Process: The compensation awarded by the competent authority is typically based on the legal ownership of the property. Since party-1 was recognized as the sole owner after the strike-off, the compensation was directed to them. The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, emphasizes rightful ownership in compensation matters.
• Writ Petition by Sons of Party-2: When party-2’s sons file a writ petition, they will likely argue for their rightful share in the compensation based on their belief that Schedule C should still be considered joint property. However, they may face challenges because:
• The actual partition deed indicates that Schedule C was no longer joint property.
• They did not object to the addition of their names during the compensation process, implying acceptance of the current arrangement.
• They had possession of the original deed, but its contents were not disclosed, which raises questions of good faith and transparency.
• Possible Court Outcomes: Depending on the arguments and evidence presented, the high court may:
• Uphold the decision of the competent authority, affirming party-1's exclusive ownership and compensation rights.
• Order a re-examination of the partition deed’s validity and its effects on the ownership of Schedule C.
• Mandate a settlement between the parties, possibly leading to a negotiated agreement on compensation distribution.

In summary, the high court's decision will hinge on the legal interpretation of the partition deed, the actions taken by both parties during the land acquisition process, and the principles of property law as outlined in the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and other relevant statutes.