Madras High Court
Pandi vs The District Revenue Officer on 24 March, 2022
A.S(MD)No.136 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 24.03.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
A.S.(MD).No.136 of 2019
Pandi ... Appellants/
3rd Claimant
Vs.
1.The District Revenue Officer,
National Highways Land Acquisition,
Madurai.
2.Chellammal
3.Minor Padma Shree
(Represented through her Guardian,
Maternal Grand Mother, Meena) ... Respondent Nos.2 & 3/
Claimants 1 & 4
Prayer : This Appeal Suit is filed under Section 54 of Land Acquisition Act, 1994 r/w
Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the judgment and decree made in
N.H.L.A.O.P.No.11 of 2009 dated 23.07.2018 on the file of the 6 th Additional District
Court, Madurai.
1/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S(MD)No.136 of 2019
For Appellant : Mr.M.Thirunavukkarasu
For R1 : Mr.C.Satheesh
Government Advocate
For R2 & R3 : Mr.A.Ilangovan
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been preferred challenging the judgment of the learned
6th Additional District Judge, Madurai, made in N.H.L.A.O.P.No.11 of 2009, dated
23.07.2018.
2.This is the matter arisen out of the reference made by learned Acquisition Officer
under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with regard to apportionment of the
compensation awarded for acquiring the subject land.
3.The sum and substance of the reference of the Officer is that an extent of
1461sq. metre plot in survey No.151/1B situated at Kulasekarankottai Village in
Vadipatti Taluk, has been acquired vide Acquisition Order B10/111595/2005 and
compensation was fixed; at the time of dispersing the compensation, there arose a
dispute between one Siva @ Sivalingakonar and the son of one Sangukonar; both Siva
and Sangukonar died; Alagupillai, who is the wife of the deceased Siva and Pandi, son
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S(MD)No.136 of 2019
of the deceased Sangukonar had disputed between themselves by claiming the
compensation amount. Hence, the reference was made to the civil Court in compliance
of Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act; the first claimant-Chellammal is the mother
of Siva and the third claimant-Pandi; Wife of Siva is the second claimant-Alagupillai;
since Alagupillai also died, her daughter - fourth claimant has been impleaded.
4.According to the submission of the claimants 1, 2 and 4, the subject land originally
belonged to the second husband of Chellammal, namely, Sivalingakonar and his brother
Karuppusamykonar; after the demise of Sivalingakonar, the partition had taken place
between her son Siva and the brother of Sivalingakonar, by name, Karuppusamykonar
in respect of the family properties; on 29.08.1981, by virtue of a registered partition
deed, the properties in Survey No.151/1B, 151/4B, 151/8 and 152/6 were allotted to the
share of Siva, son of the Chellammal and Sivalingakonar; since Siva was a minor,
he was represented by his mother Chellammal; after having acquired the said properties
through partition, Chellammal had dealt with the said property on behalf of Siva by
mortgaging it on 11.12.1989; the said mortgage was later redeemed by Siva on
03.02.1997; Subsequently, Siva also died by leaving his mother, wife and daughter as
his legal heirs (first, second and fourth claimants); the third claimant-Pandi does not
have any right in the subject land; though he is the son of the first claimant, he born
through her first husband by name Sangukonar.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S(MD)No.136 of 2019
5.The third claimant Pandi would submit that the first claimant Chellammal had married
his father Sangukonar prior to her marriage with Sivalingakonar; Sangukonar died in
the year 1961 leaving the first claimant and the third claimant as his legal heirs; the
subject land and other lands were exclusively enjoyed by himself and his mother the
first claimant; after the first claimant married Sivalingakonar, the first claimant-
Chellammal gave away all the properties to her second husband Sangukonar without the
consent of Pandi the third claimant; subsequently, the patta for the said properties were
transferred in the name of Siva; since Siva died by leaving his wife, daughter and
mother as his legal heirs, his wife - second claimant is attempting to get entire
compensation in respect of the subject land; in this connection, a civil suit has already
filed and the same is pending; so far as the subject land is concerned, the third claimant
alone is lawfully entitled to receive the compensation.
6.Based on the rival submissions made by the claimants, the learned trial Judge has
framed the following issues:-
nfhhpf;ifahsh;fSf;F ,ilna gpur;rpid cs;sjhy; ahh; ,Hg;gPL
bjhifia bgw chpila[ilath;?
7.During the course of enquiry, on the side of the claimants, four witnesses were
examined as CW1 to CW4 and Ex.C1 to Ex.C34 were marked.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S(MD)No.136 of 2019
8.After conclusion of enquiry and on considering materials available on record, the
learned trial Judge had held that the claimants 1 and 4 alone are entitled to receive the
compensation and the third claimant had got no right or share in the compensation.
Aggrieved over that, the third claimant has preferred this appeal.
9.Heard Mr.M.Thirunavukkarasu, learned counsel appearing for the appellant,
Mr.C.Satheesh, learned Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent and
Mr.A.Ilangovan, learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3.
10.The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned trial Judge had
placed his reliance only on the partition deed dated 29.08.1981 (Ex.C1) by ignoring the
adangal extracts produced by the third claimant, vide Ex.C12 to Ex.C15 and Ex.C27;
the above documents would show that the adangal extracts for the suit property in the
year 1973 had stood in the name of his father and the heirs of the second husband of his
mother would not have any right or title in the same; the civil Court has relied on
certain documents which are in no way related to the subject land; Ex.C34 is the release
deed executed by Sangukonar, but it does not have any relevance to the subject land;
the learned Judge without appreciating the materials in favour of the third claimant has
non-suited his eligibility to claim the compensation; hence, the judgment of the civil
Court should be set aside and the appeal should be allowed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S(MD)No.136 of 2019
11. The learned counsel for the respondents/claimants 1 and 4 submitted that the
partition deed is of the year 1981; it was much prior to the acquisition proceedings,
which was initiated in the year 2009; the third claimant who was the son of the first
claimant - Chellamamal through her first husband was also residing with her mother
only at the time of Ex.C1 partition deed; at that point of time, he did not raise any
objection; in pursuance of the partition deed, certain lands including subject land were
allotted to the share of the Siva, son of the Sivalingal Konar and Chellammal;
subsequent to that, patta has also been mutated in favour of Siva and the subject land
was exclusively enjoyed by the wife and daughter of Siva subsequent to his death;
since the second claimant - Alagupillai, who is the wife of Siva also died, the first
claimant and the fourth claimant alone are entitled to receive compensation as legal
heirs of Late Siva; the learned trial Judge had rightly appreciated the materials on
records and non-suited the third claimant for getting any share in the compensation;
hence, the judgment of the civil Court does not call for any interference.
12.Point for consideration:-
Whether the apportionment of compensation as held by the Court
below is fair and proper?
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S(MD)No.136 of 2019
13. The material on records would show that the first claimant - Chellammal had two
husbands. Through the first husband – Sangukonar, the third claimant was born.
Subsequent to the death of Sangukonar, she married one Sivalingakonar as second
husband and through her second husband - Sivalingakonar, she had a son by name Siva.
According to the first claimant, the subject land was owned by Sivalingakonar by virtue
of a partition entered into between the brother of Sivalingakonar, namely,
Karuppusamykonar and Siva. Subsequent to the death of Sivalingakonar, the subject
land along with some other properties were allotted to the share of Siva in the year
1981 iteslf. In order to show the same, the partition deed has been produced as Ex.C1.
Though the third claimant had produced some adangal in respect of the subject land
vide Ex.C12 to C15 and C27, those documents would show that it relates to the period
prior to Ex.C1 partition deed. Though adangal extract can be considered as documents
to show possession or cultivation, they cannot convince about title of the parties.
Admittedly, the partition had taken place subsequent to the period of the adangal
extracts, i.e., in the year 1981.
14.It was the submission of the third claimant that the subject land was his ancestral
property and he could not file any other document excepting the adangal to show the
same, but the learned trial Judge failed to consider the same. The learned civil Judge
while dealing with the adangal extracts produced by the third claimant has rightly made
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S(MD)No.136 of 2019
an observation that the third claimant could not produce any patta or any other
documents which could evidence the title of his father Sangukonar in respect of the
subject land. The partition deed Ex.C1 which would confer title on the deceased Siva
is a registered deed. Subsequent to the above partition deed, Siva became entitled to the
subject land and other lands allotted to him in the said partition. Since Siva was a
minor at that time, the first claimant acted as his guardian and dealt the above property
by mortgaging the same in favour of the third parties. The mortgage was discharged by
Siva after he attained majority and Ex.C5 mortgage discharge receipt was also produced
to show the same. Though all these registered documents have come into existence,
several years before the initiation of the acquisition proceedings, the third claimant did
not raise any objection and file any proceedings to declare them as null and void on the
ground that those properties belonged to his own father Sangukonar. It is needless to
state that as against the persons who claim any interest or title in the property, the
registration would amount to notice. The registered documents that have come into
existence from the year 1981 in respect of the subject land were ignored by the third
claimant until the acquisition proceedings. The claimants 1 and 4 were able to show that
the patta stood in the name of Siva to show that would only confirm that Ex.C1 partition
deed was acted upon.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S(MD)No.136 of 2019
15.The learned counsel for the appellant invited the attention of this Court to the
evidence of the first claimant – Chellammal, wherein she has stated that the subject land
was purchased by her husband and his brother – Karuppusamykonar, but in her claim,
she has stated that the properties are ancestral property and hence, she has not stated the
truth. The entitlement of the subject land to her husband Sivalingakonar and his brother
Karuppusamykonar is very much evident in the partition deed entered between the son
of Sivalingakonar and Karuppusamykonar. So her oral evidence will not be of any
consequence and it cannot override the written and registered document Ex.C1. The
learned civil Judge has rightly appreciated the evidence available on record before
concluding that the claimants 1 and 4 alone are eligible to get compensation awarded in
respect of the acquisition of the subject land. In my considered opinion, I do not find
any reason for interference.
16.Hence, the appeal is dismissed and the order passed in NHLOP No.11 of 2009 dated
23.07.2018 on the file of the VI Additional District Judge, Madurai, is confirmed.
No Costs.
Index : Yes/No 24.03.2022
Internet : Yes/No
cp
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S(MD)No.136 of 2019
To
1.The 6th Additional District Court,
Madurai.
2.The District Revenue Officer,
National Highways Land Acquisition,
Madurai.
3.The Section Officer,
VR Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S(MD)No.136 of 2019
R.N.MANJULA,J.,
cp
A.S.(MD).No.136 of 2019
24.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
