Madras High Court
Sub Collector vs Ramalinga Nadar on 29 January, 2021
A.S.(MD)No.30 of 2015
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 29.01.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
A.S.(MD)No.30 of 2015
and
M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2015
Sub Collector,
Nagercoil. ... Appellant/Referring Officer/
Respondent
Vs.
1.Ramalinga Nadar
2.Vanamamalai
Seethalakshmi(died)
3.Murugan
4.Jothi Renuka
5.Anitha
6.Thamarai Manalan ... Respondents/claimants/
Petitioners
PRAYER: Appeal Suit filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act against
the judgment and decree passed on 18.10.2010 in L.A.O.P.No.3 of 2000 by the
learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil with regard to Resurvey No.
1/6
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.(MD)No.30 of 2015
721/2C of Aralvoimozhi Village.
For Appellant : Mr.J.Gunaseelan Muthaiah
Additional Government Pleader
For Respondents : No appearance
JUDGMENT
Aggrieved over the order of the Land Acquisition Tribunal regarding the
compensation awarded to the claimants, the present Appeal Suit has been filed by
the appellant mainly on the ground that the Tribunal awarded compensation
including the land of 0.13.0 Ares (roughly about 32 cents), which was originally
belonged to one Ramalinga Nadar, as against law.
2. The brief facts, leading to file the appeal suit, is as follows:
Originally in S.No.722/1A1 to an extent of 1.11.0 hectare land was
acquired for construction of Poigaiyar Reservoir Project at Aralvoimozhi. The
claimants owned land to an extent of 1.21.5 hectare in S.No.721/1 situated in
Aralvoimozhi village, out of which an extent of 0.20.0 hectare alone acquired for
the Poigaiyar Reservoir Project at Aralvoimozhi. The Land Acquisition Officer
fixed compensation to the claimants. As the claimants were not come forward to
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.(MD)No.30 of 2015
receive the compensation, the matter was referred to the Land Acquisition Tribunal
under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Land Acquisition
Tribunal, after considering the entire evidence held that as per the records, an
extent of 47.5 cents were acquired as against 28 cents and awarded the
compensation as against which the present Appeal Suit is filed.
3. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimants, P.W.1 was examined
and Exs.P1 to P5 were marked. On the side of the respondents, R.W.1 was
examined and Exs.R1 and R2 were marked. The Advocate Commissioner's report
was filed in Exs.A1 and A2.
4. The learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that a
portion of the property was purchased by one Devakumar from the said Ramalinga
Nadar. Therefore, the Land Acquisition Tribunal awarding the compensation to
the claimants including the said land situated in S.No.
721/2C to an extent of 0.13.0 Ares (roughly about 32 cents) is not correct and
hence prayed for allowing the appeal.
5. In the light of the above submission, the point for consideration arises
for consideration is;
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.(MD)No.30 of 2015
“Whether the land belonging to one Ramalinga Nadar was acquired and
whether the Tribunal wrongly awarded the compensation to the claimants?”
6. The Advocate Commissioner was appointed by the Land Acquisition
Tribunal has filed a report stating that an extent of 47.5 cents of land in S.Nos.
721/2A, 721/2C were acquired, which belonged to the claimants and based on the
Advocate Commissioner's report, the award of compensation was granted.
7. Heard the learned Additional Government Pleader and perused the
entire materials available on record.
8. It is the main contention of the appellant that an extent of 32 cents in
S.No.721/2C was purchased by one Devakumar from the said Ramalinga Nadar
through a registered sale deed, dated 24.09.2012. Be that as it may, on perusal of
the records reveals that the Tribunal has passed the order on 18.10.2010 itself.
Even assuming that the subsequent sale was taken place, the same did not convey
any title to the purchasers since the land was already acquired by the appellant. It
is for the so-called purchaser to take action against the seller for selling the land,
which was already acquired by the Government. The so-called purchaser also
neither challenged the award nor claimed any compensation. In such view of the
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.(MD)No.30 of 2015
matter, the appellant has no right to challenge the award passed by the Land
Acquisition Officer/Tribunal. It is for the purchaser to take action against the
vendor for recovery of money, in accordance with law, if such sale is proved.
Hence, the appellant has not satisfied this Court to entertain this appeal.
Therefore, this Court is of the view that the order of the Land Acquisition Tribunal
is well reasonable and based on the factual aspects. Accordingly, this Court does
not find any infirmity or error in the order. Accordingly, the point for consideration
is answered.
9. In the result, the Appeal Suit is dismissed. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
29.01.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
PJL
Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official
purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is
presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the
advocate/litigant concerned.
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.(MD)No.30 of 2015
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
PJL
To
1.The Principal Subordinate Judge,
Nagercoil.
2.The Section Officer,
Vernacular Records,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
A.S.(MD)No.30 of 2015
29.01.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
