Madras High Court
Puliyadi A.Balusamy Trust vs The District Revenue Officer on 18 October, 2023
C.R.P(MD)No.1703 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 18.10.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI
C.R.P(MD)No.1703 of 2018(PD)
and
C.M.P(MD)No.7352 of 2018
1.Puliyadi A.Balusamy Trust
represented by its Managing Trustee,
P.B.Ajit Babu
2.Puliyadi A.Balusamy Trust,
Represented by its Managing Trustee,
P.B.Biswajit Babu
3.Puliyadi A.Balusamy Trust,
Represented by its Managing Trustee,
P.B.Karuna Alagarsamy :Revision Petitioners 1 to 3/
Petitioners 1 to 3/
rd
3 party claimants 1 to 3
.vs.
1.The District Revenue Officer,
Collector Office, Madurai. .... 1st Respondent/
1st Respondent/Referring Officer
2.P.A.Jaswant Babu
Gulam Mahideen Ghori Saibu (Died)
3.Murugesan
4.Elango
5.Shanthi
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(MD)No.1703 of 2018
6.Khader Nawas Khan
7.Jaffer Khan
8.Johny Begam
9.Hasan Banu
10.Basheri John
11.Nazema Begam
12.Sheeri Begam ...Respondents Nos.2 to 12/
Respondents Nos.2 to 12/
Claimants Nos.2 to 12
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, against the order and Ex-order dated 13.04.2018
made in I.A.No.1090 of 2017 in NH LAOP No.31 of 2009 on the file of
the Learned VI Additional District Judge, Madurai.
For appellants :Mr.M.Thirunavukkarasu
For R1 :Mr.A.Baskaran
Additional Government Pleader
For R2 :Mr.K.Sekar
For R6 to R12 :M/s.A.Niveditha
for Mr.S.Madhavan
For R3 to R5 : No appearance
ORDER
******
This Civil Revision Petition is at the instance of the applicants,
who approached the LAOP Court as third parties seeking to implead
themselves in the proceedings as they were proper and necessary parties.
The trial Court has dismissed the said application and aggrieved by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(MD)No.1703 of 2018
same, the said third parties are before this Court by way of above
revision.
2. The grounds of challenge to the impugned order dismissing their
impleading application are that the trial Court failed to see that the
revision petitioners were proper and also necessary parties to the LAOP
proceedings, “the properties were trust properties and not the individual
properties of the second respondent” and in terms of Section 47 of the
Trust Act, the second respondent was not within his authority to appoint
a power agent for managing the trust properties as they were not his
individual properties.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well
as the respondents 1,2,6 to 12.
4. I have perused the records including the impugned order.
5. Admittedly, the claim petition has been filed by the claimants
before the VI Additional District Court, Madurai for compensation in
respect of properties that were acquired by the National Highways.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(MD)No.1703 of 2018
Pending LAOP proceedings, the revision petitioners filed I.A.No.1090 of
2017 seeking to implead themselves and according to the revision
petitioners, the properties, which were acquired, belong to a Trust and in
respect of the said Trust properties, the matter was already subjudice and
in the said suit, the revision petitioners have also succeeded. However, it
is stated that the second respondent has filed an appeal and the
respondents 6 to 12 have filed an independent suit. Therefore, the
counsel for respondents states that the revision petitioners cannot claim
advantage of the decree in their favour and seek to implead themselves
and it only prolongs to the land acquisition proceedings to determine the
rightful claimants, namely, the respondents.
6. After considering the rival submissions advanced by the
respective counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the revision
petitioners have shown that they have semblance of right, title and
interest in the subject properties. In fact, they did not even claim that the
subject properties are their properties. It is their case that the properties
belonged to Puliyadi A.Balusamy Trust and their grievance is that the
second respondent is trying to take away the entire compensation in the
land acquisition proceedings, behind their back.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(MD)No.1703 of 2018
7. Admittedly, O.S.No.749 of 2013, on the file of the II Additional
Sub Court, Madurai is one for declaration at the instance of the revision
petitioners and the said suit has been decreed which factum is not
disputed by the counsel for the respondents. The decree is in favour of
the petitioners and even though the said judgment is under challenge at
the instance of the second respondent, at this stage, it would be just and
proper to hear the revision petitioners also, who are only claiming as
managing trustees and trustee of the Puliyadi A.Balusamy Trust. The
trial Court without adverting to these facts, has erroneously dismissed the
application to implead the revision petitioners. I feel that no prejudice
will be caused to all the claimants, namely, the respondents herein if the
LAOP is decided in the presence of the revision petitioners, especially,
when a decree of a competent Court declaring that the revision
petitioners are entitled to manage the said Puliyadi A.Balusamy Trust has
been passed. Therefore, I am constrained to interfere with the order of
the trial Court dismissing the application to implead the revision
petitioners.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(MD)No.1703 of 2018
8. In fine, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order
passed by the learned VI Additional District Judge, Madurai in I.A.No.
1090 of 2017 in LAOP No.31 of 2009 dated 13.04.2018 is set aside. The
revision petitioners shall be allowed to participate in the LAOP
proceedings and considering that the LAOP is of the year 2009, the trial
Court shall take expeditious steps to dispose of the LAOP in accordance
with law, after affording fair opportunity to all the parties, including the
revision petitioners as well as other claimants namely the respondents 2,
6 to 12 and to dispose of the LAOP within a period of six months from
the date of commencement of enquiry. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
18.10.2023
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
NCC:Yes/No
AM
To
The VI Additional District Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(MD)No.1703 of 2018
P.B.BALAJI,J.
am
C.R.P(MD)No.1703 of 2018(PD)
18.10.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
