Madras High Court
Ragunathan vs Union Of India on 8 September, 2022
A.S.No.1 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 08.09.2022
Coram
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
A.S. No. 1 of 2015
Ragunathan ... Appellant
Versus
1. Union of India
Rep.by
The Secretary to Government (Revenue)
Government of Puducherry.
2. The Deputy Collector (Revenue) cum
Land Acquisition Officer,
Puducherry. .. Respondents
Appeal filed under Section 96 Civil Procedure Code to set aside
the impugned order dated 14.09.2010 passed in LAOP.No.125 of 2007
on the file of III Additional District Judge at Puducherry.
For Appellant : Mr.S.Udayakumar
For Respondents : M/s.G.Djearany
Government Advocate
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.1 of 2015
JUDGMENT
The appeal is filed by the third respondent in LAOP.No.125 of
2007 aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the learned III Additional
District Judge, Puducherry dated 14.09.2010 in LAOP No. 125 of 2007
in and by which, out of the total compensation amount of Rs.3,18,184/-,
only 50% of the amount being Rs.1,59,092 was ordered to be paid to the
appellant herein while the rest is now lying in the deposit of the trial
Court.
2. On acquisition of the land, there were rival claims from one
Natarajan the first respondent in the LAOP and Kuppusamy the second
respondent in the LAOP. Accordingly the reference was made and was
taken on file as LAOP No.125 of 2007. In spite of service of notice, in
spite of the said Natarajan being alive, the Natarajan did not appear
before the trial Court and did not file any claim statement. The second
respondent in the LAOP namely Kuppusamy filed a claim statement. In
the said claim statement it is clearly stated that the acquired property
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.1 of 2015
being an extent of 48 Are, 50 centiare situated in Vadanur Village,
Puducherry in R.S.No.63/3 which is acquired by award No.4 of 2005,
originally belonged to his grand father Chinnasamy Gounder. On
15.05.1965 the said Chinnasamy Gounder executed a registered donation
deed and donated the property in favour of Murugesa Gounder who is
the son of the second respondent. The said Murugesa Gounder died
during his childhood and therefore it is claimed that the second
respondent had become the absolute owner of the property. The second
respondent had also died pending the LAOP and the third respondent
being his legal heir, namely, Raghunathan, was brought on record. The
third respondent examined himself as RW1 and the documents in Ex.R1
to Ex.R7 in support of the claim were marked. However, the trial Court
found that in Ex.R4 joint patta, the names of both Natarajan and
Kuppusamy is mentioned and therefore did not accept the case of the
appellant/respondent No.3 and ordered that they will be entitled to only
for 50%. Aggrieved by the same the present appeal is filed before this
Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.1 of 2015
3. As far as the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf
of the Acquisition Officer is concerned, she would submit that they have
deposited the entire award amount and it is an interse dispute between
both the respondents in the LAOP and therefore she leaves it to the
Court. The learned counsel would submit that even though on earlier
occasion, he was directed to take steps to implead the legal heirs of
Natarajan, as a matter of fact they are unable to locate the legal heirs of
the said Natarajan. He would further submit that they are not duty bound
to implead the legal heirs on record. The said Natarajan was alive during
the LAOP proceedings. He did not contest the matter. Even after his
death, his legal heirs did not come on record even before the trial Court
in the LAOP proceedings. The factum as to the death of Natarajan has
been recorded by the trial Court itself.
4. In that view of the matter, he would pray that this Court should
proceed to hear the matter on merits and decide the issue and submitted
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.1 of 2015
that since he has categorically proved that there was a settlement deed
which was executed by the deceased grand father in the name of the
grand son, merely because the name is found in the patta, the same will
not in any manner result in conferring the title on the said Natarajan or on
his legal heirs.
5. Considering the said submissions made by the learned counsel
for the appellant, considering the fact that the said Natarajan did not file
any claim statement even though he was alive during the LAOP
proceedings and considering the fact that the legal heirs did not come on
record and even till date there is no any petition filed on behalf of them
and considering the reason by the trial Court which is only based on joint
patta when the document of title has been produced as Ex.R2 which is a
settlement deed, I am of the view that the judgment and decree of the trial
Court is erroneous in law as the appellant has proved his title to the
property. More so the rival claimant had not cared to defend the matter.
In that view of the matter, the appeal suit is allowed on the following
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.1 of 2015
terms.
1. the judgment and decree of the learned III Additional District
Judge, Puducherry dated 14.09.2010 in LAOP No.125 of 2007 is
set aside in as much as it orders to keep 50% of the award amount
namely a sum of Rs.1,59,092/- in Court deposit itself;
2. the appellant is held entitled to the entire compensation amount
of Rs.3,18,184/-;
3. the amount of Rs.1,59,092/- lying in deposit of the LAOP
No.125 of 2007 on the file of the III Additional District Court
Puducherry shall be paid to the appellant herein along with
accrued interest if any. No costs.
08.09.2022
dpq
Index : Yes / No
Speaking order : Yes / No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.1 of 2015
To
1. Union of India
Rep.by
The Secretary to Government (Revenue)
Government of Puducherry.
2. The Deputy Collector (Revenue) cum
Land Acquisition Officer,
Puducherry.
3. The III Additional District Court,
Puducherry.
4. The Section Officer,
VR Section, Madras High Court,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.1 of 2015
D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
dpq
A.S. No. 1 of 2015
08.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
