Skip to content


Alamelu Ammal and anr. Vs. State of Madras and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberC.R.P. Nos. 3191 and 3345 of 1977
Judge
Reported inAIR1981Mad192
ActsLand Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 18, 30 and 31
AppellantAlamelu Ammal and anr.
RespondentState of Madras and anr.
Appellant AdvocateP.R. Krishnan, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateAdditional Govt. Pleader
Excerpt:
- - in view of this, i am clearly of the opinion that the two petitioners herein are entitled to the enhanced compensation and therefore the order of the learned judge, city civil court, dismissing the petitions filed by the petitioners herein is not correct......these are civil revision petitions to revise the order of the learned tenth assistant judge, city civil court, madras, dated 5th day of october, 1976 dismissing c. m. p. nos. 7012 and 7013 in l. a. c. no. 383 of 1965 certain ands were acquired by the government under the land acquisition act, and since there was a dispute regarding the claim to the compensation, a reference was made to the city civil court, madras, under ss. 30 and 31 of the act. the three rival claimants were alamelu, ammal, jayammal, the petitioners respectively in the two civil revision petitions and nagiah naidu, the second respondent in the two civil revision petitions. the reference was numbered as la.c. no.509 of 1965. on 11th april 1967 it was decided in the said l.a.c. n6. 509 of 1965 that the said nagiah.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. These are Civil Revision Petitions to revise the order of the learned Tenth Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, dated 5th day of October, 1976 dismissing C. M. P. Nos. 7012 and 7013 in L. A. C. No. 383 of 1965 Certain ands were acquired by the Government under the Land Acquisition Act, and since there was a dispute regarding the claim to the compensation, a reference was made to the City Civil Court, Madras, under Ss. 30 and 31 of the Act. The three rival claimants were Alamelu, Ammal, Jayammal, the petitioners respectively in the two Civil Revision Petitions and Nagiah Naidu, the second respondent in the two civil revision petitions. The reference was numbered as LA.C. No.509 of 1965. On 11th April 1967 it was decided in the said L.A.C. N6. 509 of 1965 that the said Nagiah Naidu did not have any interest in the land and it was only the two petitioners in these petitions who had interest in the land and they alone will be entitled to the compensation. Against this decision, Nagiah Naidu preferred A. S. No. 641 of 1967 before this Court and this Court on 15, November 1972 dismissed the appeal affirming the conclusion of the City Civil Court that Nagiah Naidu had no interest in the land and the two petitioners herein alone had interest in the land and were entitled to the compensation. During the pendency of L.A.C. No. 509 of 1965, probably even before that, Nagiah Naidu filed a petition under S. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for referring the question of compensation to the Civil Court and a reference was made to the Civil Court in, L.A.C. No. 383 of 1965. In that land acquisition reference, the City Civil Court granted an enhancement on 7th March 1967. Against this grant of enhanced compensation the State preferred A. S. No. 834 of 1967 on 19th October, 1967 impleading the said Nagiah Naidu, as the sole respondent. On 28th, November, 1972 A. S. No. 834 of 1967 was disposed of, by, allowing the appeal preferred by the State in part. The result of this will be the enhanced compensation granted by the City Civil Court in L.A.C. No. 383 of 1965 was reduced. By that time, as I mentioned already, it had been held both by the City Civil Court and this Court that Nagiah Naidu was not entitled to the compensation as he had no interest in the land. In view of this, the two petitioners herein filed C.M.P. Nos. 7012 and 7013 of 1976 for payment out of the enhanced compensation lying in Court deposit. Those petitions were objected to by the Government Pleader. The learned Tenth Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, upheld the objections and dismissed the petition filed by the two petitioners herein. Hence these two civil revision petitions.

2. The contention advanced by the learned Government Pleader before the City Civil Court and this Court was that the enhanced compensation was asked for and obtained by Nagiah Naidu who was held to be not interested in the land and therefore the petitioners herein cannot claim the enhanced compensation. The question for consideration is whether this contention is correct or not. We have got a peculiar situation arising out of two parallel proceedings. In one proceeding it was decided that Nagiah Naidu was not entitled to the compensation and the petitioners alone are entitled to compensation. To the proceedings which gave rise to this decision the two petitioners herein and Nagiah Naidu were parties. The other parallel proceeding is taken by Nagiah Naidu for claiming enhanced compensation and in that proceeding, the petitioners herein were not made parties. Consequently, the enhanced compensation was awarded at the instance of a person who had no interest in the land. However. As long as the order directing the payment of enhanced compensation, stands. The enhanced compensation will be payable to whomsoever is interested in the land to whomsoever the compensation is payable on that account. The fact that the enhanced compensation was not directed to be paid at the instance of the petitioners herein will not affect their right in this behalf because they alone are interested in the land and they alone are entitled to the compensation whether it was enhanced or not. In view of this, I am clearly of the opinion that the two petitioners herein are entitled to the enhanced compensation and therefore the order of the learned Judge, City Civil Court, dismissing the petitions filed by the Petitioners herein is not correct. Consequently, the two Civil Revision Petitions are allowed and the orders passed by the learned Tenth Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, dated 5th October, 1976 are set aside and C.M.P. Nos. 7012 and 7013 of 1976 will stand allowed. There will be no order as to costs in these petitions.

3. Revision petitions allowed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //