Madras High Court
K. Balu vs The Land Acquisition Officer And on 17 August, 2023
A.S.Nos.952 and 953 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 17/8/2023
CORAM
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice R.SUBRAMANIAN
AND
The Hon'ble Mrs.Justice KALAIMATHI
A.S.Nos.952 and 953 of 2020
and
C.M.P.Nos.1348, 13382 of 2020
2300 of 2022 and 6766 of 2023
K. Balu ... Appellant in both the suits
Vs
1. The Land Acquisition Officer and
Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition)
Kancheepuram Unit
Chennai Metro Rail Ltd
Chennai 600 086.
2. C. Jayaraman
3. Madurai
4. Jayaraman
5. The Chairman
Chennai Metro Rail Limited
Admin Building
CMRL Department
Poonamallee High Road
Koyambedu
Chennai 600 107. ... Respondents in A.S.No.
952 of 2023
(Impleaded the fifth respondent vide, order of
Court dated 28/2/2023 made in C.M.P.No.
5120 and 5123 of 2022 in A.S.Nos.
952 and 953 of 2020 by SVNJ & RKMJ)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No:1/
A.S.Nos.952 and 953 of 2020
and
1. The Land Acquisition Officer and
Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition)
Kancheepuram Unit
Chennai Metro Rail Ltd
Chennai 600 086.
2. C. Jayaraman
3. Chithirai
4. Jayaraman
5. Madurai
6. The Chairman
Chennai Metro Rail Limited
Admin Building
CMRL Department
Poonamallee High Road
Koyambedu
Chennai 600 107. ... Respondents in A.S.No.
953 of 2023
(Impleaded the sixth respondent vide, order of
Court dated 28/2/2023 made in C.M.P.No.
5120 and 5123 of 2022 in A.S.Nos.
952 and 953 of 2020 by SVNJ & RKMJ)
Prayer in A.S.No.952 of 2020: Appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land
Acquisition Act, to set aside the common judgments and decrees passed in
L.A.O.P.No.39 of 2011 dated 15/11/2019 on the file of the Subordinate
Judge, Tambaram.
Prayer in A.S.No.953 of 2020: Appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land
Acquisition Act, to set aside the common judgments and decrees passed in
L.A.O.P.No.5 of 2012 dated 15/11/2019 on the file of the Subordinate
Judge, Tambaram.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No:2/
A.S.Nos.952 and 953 of 2020
For appellant ... Mr.A.S.Balaji
for Mrs.Thenmozhi Shivaperumal
in both the appeals
For respondents ... Mr.T.Chandrasekaran
Special Government Pleader
for R.1
in both the appeals
R -2 – Unclaimed
in A.S.No.952 of 2020
R.2 and R.3 – Unclaimed
in A.S.No.953 of 2020
R.3 – Served. No appearance
(in A.S.No.952 of 2020)
R.5 – served. No appearance
in A.S.No.953 of 2020
Ms.S.Nandhini Devi
for Mr.R.Subramanian
for R.4
in both the appeals
Mrs.Rita Chandrasekar
for R.5 in A.S.No.952 of 2020
and for R.6 in A.S.No.953 of 2020
-----
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Mr.Justice R.SUBRAMANIAN)
While A.S.No.952 of 2020 has been filed against the judgment and
decree in L.A.O.P.No.39 of 2011, a reference was made under Sections 31
and 32 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, A.S.No.953 of 2020 has been
filed against L.A.O.P.No.5 of 2012, a reference was made under Section 18
of the Land Acquisition Act.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No:3/
A.S.Nos.952 and 953 of 2020
2. The first claimant in both the LAOPs is the appellant. An extent of
about 128.0 sq.m of land, situate in T.S.No.66 of Alandur Village was
acquired by the Chennai Metro Rail Limited, vide, Notification issued under
Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by the Chennai Metro Rail.
Since there were disputes regarding the title to the property in question and
there were rival claimants, the Collector made a deposit before the Sub-
Court, Alandur and reference was made, under Sections 31 and 32 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Subsequently, another reference was also
made, under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, in L.A.O.P.No.5 of
2012.
3. The first claimant placed his claim on Ex.C.13 viz., Town Survey
Land Register and the fact that he had exercised ownership of the land by
settling the said land in favour of his wife. The second and third claimants
in L.A.O.Ps contend that they are in possession of the land and the original
revenue records stand in their name. Therefore, they are entitled to the
compensation. The fourth claimant contend that he had purchased the
property from one Vaithiyalinga Chettiar under a Sale Deed dated 10/3/1982
and he has been in possession of the property by making out the same. He
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No:4/
A.S.Nos.952 and 953 of 2020
has also pleaded that he has initiated Rent Control proceedings against the
second claimant, in L.A.O.P.No.5 of 2012, who is the father of the third
claimant and had taken possession in execution of the order of eviction
passed by the Rent Control Authority. He would also plead that since the
second and third claimant trespassed into a portion of the subject property,
fourth claimant has filed a suit in O.S.No.78 of 2004, before the District
Munsif Court, Alandur, for declaration of title and recovery of possession
which was also decreed in his favour. He would also point out that the
appeal against the said decree in O.S.No.78 of 2004 in A.S.No.42 of 2009
came to be dismissed on 29/6/2017. Therefore, according to the fourth
claimant, the property/subject matter of acquisition belonged to him and
hence he is entitled to the compensation. A reference under Sections 30 and
31 of the Act, in L.A.O.P.No.39 of 2011 and a reference under Section 18
in L.A.O.P.No.5 of 2012 were taken up and came to be disposed of by a
common judgment.
4. The learned Subordinate Judge on the evidence available
concluded that the fourth claimant is the owner of the lands and the learned
Judge also enhanced the award amount from Rs.18,14,591/- to
Rs.47,52,415/-. It is not in dispute that the Chennai Metro Rail has accepted
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No:5/
A.S.Nos.952 and 953 of 2020
the award and has deposited the award amount into Court. Aggrieved by the
decision of the learned Subordinate Judge, the first claimant has come up
with the appeal.
5. We have heard Mr.A.S.Balaji, learned counsel for the appellant,
Ms.S.Nandhini Devi, learned counsel for the fourth respondent, Mrs.Rita
Chandrasekar, learned counsel for the fifth respondent in A.S.No.952 of
2023 and Mr.T.Chandrasekaran, learned Special Government Pleader (CS)
for the first respondent.
6. Though the third respondent in A.S.No.952 of 2020 and fifth
respondent in A.S.No.953 of 2020 were served, none appeared. Notice to
the second respondent in A.S.No.952 of 2020 and second and third
respondents in A.S.No.953 of 2020 has been returned unclaimed. Hence
service is deemed sufficient.
7. Mr.A.S.Balaji, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would
vehemently contend that the learned Sub-Judge was not right in rejecting
Ex.C.13 on conjunctures and surmises. He contended that once in Town
Survey Land Register, S.No.66/1 stood in his name, the learned Judge was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No:6/
A.S.Nos.952 and 953 of 2020
not justified in concluding that the fourth claimant/fourth respondent is the
owner of the property.
8. Contending contra , Ms.Nandhini Devi, learned counsel appearing
for the fourth respondent would submit that the revenue records cannot be
evidence to the title. She would point out that she has filed documents to
show that property stood in the name of her predecessors, viz., Vaithialinga
Chettiar and Manickkam Chettiar and that subsequently, the revenue
records were mutated in his name. She would also point out that the records
obtained under the Right to Information Act has been produced to show that
S.No.66 was sub-divided into 66/1 and 66/2 and the land acquired was
allotted in S.No.66/2 and the remaining extent of 110 sq.meters was allotted
as S.No.66/1. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the learned
Subordinate Judge was justified in concluding that the fourth respondent is
the owner of the property and that he is entitled to the compensation award.
Being a reference under Sections 30 and 31 of the Act, both the Chennai
Metro Rail and the acquiring authority are only formal parties.
9. We have considered the rival submissions.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No:7/
A.S.Nos.952 and 953 of 2020
10. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the fourth
respondent, revenue records cannot be treated as a document of title.
Moreover, the learned Subordinate Judge has pointed out as to how Ex.C.13
cannot be relied upon. He has stated that the extent of land found in the
document, does not tally with the total extent of S.No.66 and he has pointed
out that the total extent of land, as claimed by the first claimant, the
appellant herein was not available at all in the said Survey number. In
paragraph 16 of the judgment, the learned trial Judge has adverted to the
claim of the appellant and explained as to how it is preposterous. If the
claim of the appellant is to the extent of lands in S.No.66 would be 421
sq.ft., whereas the actual available extent is 2483 sq.ft. Moreover, the
document that has been produced by the fourth respondent herein, viz., the
sale deed, the prior revenue records as well as the subsequent revenue
records would conclusively establish that the fourth respondent is the owner
of the property. We are therefore, to follow, with the learned Subordinate
Judge for having concluded that the fourth respondent is the owner of the
property, we find no case for interference in A.S.No.952 of 2020 which
stands dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No:8/
A.S.Nos.952 and 953 of 2020
11. Insofar as Appeal Suit No.953 of 2020 is concerned, since the
appellant is not the land owner, he cannot question the enhancement of
compensation made by the Subordinate Court, the same will also have to be
dismissed and accordingly, the same is dismissed.
12. Now that the appeals stand dismissed, the fourth respondent will
be at liberty to withdraw the amount that has been deposited before the Sub-
Court. Parties are directed to bear their own costs. Consequently, the
connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
(R.K.M.,J) (R.S.M.,J)
th
17 August, 2023
mvs.
Index: Yes/No
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
To
1. The Land Acquisition Officer and
Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition)
Kancheepuram Unit
Chennai Metro Rail Ltd
Chennai 600 086.
2. The Subordinate Judge, Tambaram.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No:9/
A.S.Nos.952 and 953 of 2020
R.SUBRAMANIAN,J
AND
R.KALAMATHI,J
mvs.
A.S.Nos.952 and 953 of 2020
17/8/2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No:10/
