Madras High Court
The Managing Director vs A.R.M. Sundaram (Died) on 26 July, 2023
CRP(NPD)No.1908 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 26.07.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
C.R.P.(NPD)No.1908 of 2017
and C.M.P.No.9215 of 2017
The Managing Director
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Salem) Limited
No.12, Ramakrishna Road
Dharmapuri Region, Salem. ... Petitioner
Vs.
A.R.M.Palaniyappan (died)
1.A.R.M. Sundaram (died)
2.M.Babu
3.P.Aandal
4.P.Karthi
5.P.Banumathi
6.The Land Acquisition Officer
(Revenue Divisional Officer)
Dharmapuri.
7. S.Vijaya Lakshmi
8. S.Usha
9. S.Jansi
10. S.Durai Rajesh ... Respondents
(Respondents 7 to 10 brought on record as
legal heirs of the deceased 1st respondent
viz., A.R.M.Sundaram vide Court order
dated 17.07.2023 in C.M.P.Nos.18223, 18224
& 18226 of 2021 in C.R.P.No.1908 of 2017)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
CRP(NPD)No.1908 of 2017
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code
to set aside the order of attachment passed in R.E.P.No.33 of 1992 in L.A.O.P.No.6 of
1989 dated 20.04.2017 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Dharmapuri.
For Petitioner : Mr.Ilamvazhuthi for
for Mr.R.Babu
For R2 to R5 : Mr.T.R.Rajaraman
for Ms.P.Veena Suresh
For R6 : Mr.B.Tamilnidhi
Additional Government Pleader (CS)
ORDER
The civil revision petition challenges an order in R.E.P.No.33 of 1992 in
L.A.O.P.No.6 of 1989, dated 20.04.2017 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge,
Dharmapuri.
2. The civil revision petitioner is the 2nd respondent and 6th respondent is the 1st
respondent in R.E.P.No.33 of 1992. The lands were acquired by the 6 th respondent at
the request of the 2nd respondent. The 1st respondent has not filed a revision against the
order. A decree was passed in L.A.O.P.No.6 of 1989, dated 20.03.1992. It was put in
challenge in appeal and was dismissed and the same had attained finality.
3. The matter is on a very narrow compass. According to the learned counsel for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP(NPD)No.1908 of 2017
the petitioner, Mr.Ilamvazhuthi, appearing for Mr.R.Babu, the part payments that have
been made by the beneficiary of the acquisition should be adjusted towards the
principal first and against the interest later. This proposition of law on this aspect has
been raised in several cases and decided against the petitioners. The Courts have held,
following the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, that any payment made will be only
adjusted towards interest first and thereafter, adjusted towards the principal.
4. The second submission of Mr.Ilamvazhuthi is that the payment of 9% for the
first year and 15% for the years thereafter, is onerous and usurious. The Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 mandates such a payment. When the statute fixes such
payment and when it has been decreed by the learned Subordinate Judge,
Dharmapuri, in L.A.O.P.No.6 of 1989, I do not have the jurisdiction either to rewrite
the statutory law or to revisit the award. The Court can apply a statute, but cannot
rewrite the statute. Therefore, the plea of Mr.Ilamvazhuthi that the payment of 9% for
the first year and 15% for the years thereafter is usurious, is not acceptable to me.
5. Mr.Ilamvazhuthi, also would pray that this Court can reduce the interest
subsequent to the filing of the Civil Revision Petition till the date of entering upon the
date of the judgment. Such power, unfortunately, is not vested with me. I am sitting on
the revision against an order passed by the Executing Court. The revision is
circumscribed by the four corners by the decree passed in L.A.O.P.No.6 of 1989.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP(NPD)No.1908 of 2017
Therefore, I have to deny that argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
6. Mr.T.R.Rajaraman, learned counsel appearing for Ms.Veena Suresh, learned
counsel for the respondents 2 to 5, will bring to my notice that as against earlier E.P. in
E.P.No. 33 of 1992, the very same points were agitated and they were rejected.
Resjudicata applies between the parties. This order was passed in
C.R.P.(NPD)No.2543 of 2004, dated 10.12.2012. The acquisition authority having
raised the very same points and having been rejected, review being filed and that also
being dismissed and the order in review being challenged before this Court and having
been rejected, it is not open to the beneficiary to re-agitate the very same points all
over again. An order passed in L.A.O.P.No.6 of 1989 was confirmed by this Court in
A.S.No.958 of 1992 and A.S.No.133 of 1993.
7. It is pertinent to point out that as against the appeals filed from L.A.O.P.No.6
of 1989, the very same points were urged and it was rejected by this Court. The points
having been settled on the Original Side, it is not open to this Court to re-open the
same on the executing side.
8. No other points having been urged, this Court is constrained to dismiss this
Civil Revision Petition. The Executing Court is directed to proceed further with
execution and ensure that the execution proceedings are completed within a period of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP(NPD)No.1908 of 2017
four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently,
connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
26.07.2023
Index:Yes/No
Speaking Order :Yes/No
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
kj
To
The Subordinate Judge, Dharmapuri.
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN,J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP(NPD)No.1908 of 2017
Kj
C.R.P.(NPD)No.1908 of 2017
and C.M.P.No.9215 of 2017
26.07.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
