Madras High Court
State Of Tamil Nadu vs Govindammal on 26 October, 2021
S.A.No.1425 of 2005
and C.M.P.No.18750 of 2005
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 26.10.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA
S.A.No.1425 of 2005
and
C.M.P.No.18750 of 2005
1. State of Tamil Nadu
Represented by its District Collector,
Dharmapuri.
2. Tahsildar,
Krishnagiri. ... Appellants
Vs.
1. Govindammal
2. Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
Chennai.
3. Executive Engineer cum Administrative Officer,
Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
Hosur.
4. Natarajan ... Respondents
Prayer : Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure
against the decree and judgment dated 30.06.2004 in A.S. No.12 of 2004,
on the file of the I Additional District Court, Krishnagiri at Dharmapuri,
upholding the decree and judgment dated 20.11.2002 in O.S. No.39 of
1996 (Pauper Suit No.503/94), on the file of the Sub Court, Krishnagiri.
Page 1 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.No.1425 of 2005
and C.M.P.No.18750 of 2005
For Appellants : Mr.Edwin Prabakar
for Dr.S.Suriya,
Government Advocate
For Respondents : No appearance
JUDGMENT
The present Second Appeal is filed against the concurrent
findings of both the Courts below directing the present appellants to pay
a compensation of Rs.1,20,000/- (Rupees One lakh twenty thousand
only) per acre to the first respondent/plaintiff (since deceased).
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per
their ranking in the trial court and at appropriate places, their ranking in
the present appeal would also be indicated.
3. The first respondent/plaintiff was assigned the suit property
through an assignment order Ex.A1 dated 23.01.1987. The suit property
is a dry land in Survey No.737/1 of Mallapadi Village, Krishnagiri
District, measuring 2.45 acres including a well. According to the first
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.No.1425 of 2005
and C.M.P.No.18750 of 2005
respondent/plaintiff, she developed the land and was cultivating the same
even before the order of assignment, EX.A1 and later patta also came to
be issued in her favour. Her further contention is that the
defendants/appellants even without following due process of law had
taken over the suit property for the purpose of construction of houses for
the general public by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. She therefore
prayed for a declaration of her title to the suit property and for recovery
of possession of the same from the appellants/defendants. She had further
prayed for grant of past and future mesne profits. The
appellants/defendants resisted the suit by contending that the first
respondent/plaintiff, on her own will, handed over the suit property to
them and in evidence of the same affixed her thumb impression in a
proforma (Ex.B9) dated 18.11.1992.
4. Both the Courts below did not grant the larger relief of
declaration and recovery of possession but however, directed the
appellants/defendants to pay a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- per acre towards
compensation to the first respondent/plaintiff.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.No.1425 of 2005
and C.M.P.No.18750 of 2005
5. It is also observed by both the courts below that,
1) Since the first respondent/plaintiff did not violate any of the
conditions mentioned in the assignment order (Ex.A1), the
appellants/defendants have no right to take back the suit property
without following due process of law.
2) It cannot be accepted that the first respondent/plaintiff
relinquished her rights on her own will by signing the form Ex.B9
and the same is also not valid especially when there is no
cancellation of assignment order, Ex.A1.
3) Apart from this, there is no recital in Ex.B9 either that the first
defendant had relinquished her rights over the suit land or that she
had handed over the land on her own will to the Government.
4) The acquisition of suit land by the Government is not for any
public welfare scheme and the Housing Board is selling the
constructed houses to various persons only after receiving
consideration for the same, which is clearly commercial in nature.
5) Both D.W.1 and D.W.2, the officials of the Government, did not
support the case of the appellants/defendants and it is clear from
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.No.1425 of 2005
and C.M.P.No.18750 of 2005
their evidence that the concerned authorities neither explained the
procedure nor highlighted the contents of the Ex.B.9 to the
plaintiff.
6. Since the Housing Board had already started putting up
construction in the suit land and the learned counsel for the first
respondent/plaintiff pleaded atleast for payment of compensation, the
trial court fixed the compensation amount as Rs.1,20,000/- per acre and
directed the appellants to pay the same to the first respondent/plaintiff
together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. This value was fixed
based on the evidence of D.W.1 to D.W.3.
7. At the time of admission the following substantial questions
of law were framed.
i. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not barred under the principles
of estoppel when the plaintiff herself relinquished her right and
execute Ex.B9 in respect of the plaint schedule mentioned
property?
ii. Whether the Trial Court is correct in fixing the value of the land
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.No.1425 of 2005
and C.M.P.No.18750 of 2005
without adopting the procedure contemplated under the
appropriate act?
iii. Whether the Courts below are correct in awarding sum of
Rs.1,20,000/- per acre as a compensation without appreciating
Ex.B9?
8. During the pendency of the present second appeal, first
respondent/plaintiff died and till date no steps were taken by the
appellants to bring on record the legal heirs of the deceased first
respondent/plaintiff. This Court also on 24.08.2021, dismissed the
appeal as against the first respondent/plaintiff for non prosecution. It is
pertinent to point out that the first respondent/plaintiff is the sole
contesting respondent. Therefore nothing survives for further
adjudication in the present second appeal.
9. Apart from that, even on merits, both the Courts below, after
assessing the entire oral and documentary evidence, had come to a
conclusion that the first respondent/plaintiff should be paid a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.No.1425 of 2005
and C.M.P.No.18750 of 2005
compensation of Rs.1,20,000/- per acre. At this juncture, it is appropriate
to point out that the first respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for a
declaration of her title to the suit property and also for recovery of
possession. She had also prayed for granting past and future mesne
profits. It seems, during the course of arguments before the trial Court,
the first respondent/plaintiff restricted her claim only for the payment of
compensation. She had not also filed any appeal against the decree and
judgment passed by the trial Court.
10. The first respondent/plaintiff, in fact, had filed the suit as
an indigent person and she is also an illiterate. In such circumstances, the
contention of the appellants / defendants that she handed over the suit
land back to the Government out of her own will is not convincing. Both
the Courts below analysed the oral and documentary evidence adduced
by the litigating parties in the suit in the proper perspective. Both the
courts below had also assigned cogent reasons for coming to such a
conclusion and therefore, this court does not see any reason to interfere
with the same. In view of the above reasons, all the substantial questions
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.No.1425 of 2005
and C.M.P.No.18750 of 2005
of law are answered against the appellants.
11. In the result,
i. the appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently,
connected civil miscellaneous petition is also
dismissed.
ii. the decree and judgment dated 30.06.2004 in A.S.
No.12 of 2004, on the file of the I Additional District
Court, Krishnagiri at Dharmapuri, and the decree and
judgment dated 20.11.2002 in O.S. No.39 of 1996
(Pauper Suit No.503/94), on the file of the Sub Court,
Krishnagiri, are upheld.
26.10.2021
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-Speaking order
mtl/ham
R. HEMALATHA, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.No.1425 of 2005
and C.M.P.No.18750 of 2005
mtl/ham
To
1. The I Additional District Court, Krishnagiri, Dharmapuri.
2. The Sub Court, Krishnagiri.
3. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras.
S.A.No.1425 of 2005
and
C.M.P.No.18750 of 2005
26.10.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
