IMPORTANT POINT
A civil court lacks jurisdiction to partition property already acquired by the land acquisition authority, necessitating transfer of the suit to the competent court to avoid conflicting decisions.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioners herein are the plaintiffs and the respondents are the defendants in O.S. No. 8/2024, on the files of the Sub Court, Manjeri. The suit is one for partition.

2. The case of the petitioners is that they are the co-owners of the property comprised in RS 45/1 of Karuvarakundu village in Malappuram District. The property originally belonged to Mohammed @ Bapputty, and his children obtained purchase certificate from the Land Tribunal. All these properties are lying as a single plot and the respondents herein are the co-owners of the property. After the death of the petitioners’ father Mohammed@ Bapputty, the property is being managed by the petitioners along with other legal heirs and their mother Ummeriya. Meanwhile, the property belonged to the petitioners as well as other co-owners were acquired by the government for National Highway and the National Highways authority had referred the matter to the Additional District Court, Manjeri, since there was dispute with regard to the apportionment of the compensation amount. The Additional District Court taken the matter into file and numbered as L.A.R Nos.14/2024, 15/2024, 19/2024, 21/2024, 22/2024, 25/2024 and 47 of 2024.

3. Altogether, there are seven matters pending before the Additional District Court in which the petitioners received notice from the court and filed written statement. The suit pending before the Sub court is pertaining to the title and possession of the same property which is also in question in the Land Acquisition Reference. Hence, for avoiding divergent decision on the same question with respect to the same property, the petitioners seek transfer of O.S. No 8/2024 pending before the Sub Court, Manjeri to the Additional District Court, Manjeri.

4. Heard the counsels appearing on either sides.

5. The counsel for the petitioners states that the suit filed by the petitioners is for partition of the property in which the title and possession of the property is the primary question. The property under acquisition is included as C schedule in Annexure.1 suit. Hence, the property needs to be partitioned in suit is equally in question before the Land Acquisition Reference in all the 7 cases above, with respect to its apportionment. Therefore, the counsel contends that the original suit pending before the Sub Court, Manjeri is to be transferred to the Additional District Court, Manjeri, to avoid conflicting decisions concerning the same property.

6. The counsel for the respondents vociferously objected to the contentions raised by the petitioners. In the counter filed by the 3^rd respondent to I.A. No 2/2025, it is contended that only after getting knowledge of the higher compensation about to be awarded to the respective land owners as part of the acquisition, the petitioners approached the 3^rd respondent demanding a share of the compensation. It was on the eve of the denial of the request, the petitioners approached the Sub Court and filed O.S. No 8/2024, for partition. The counsel contended that the suit was filed only after fixing the basic market value for the land proposed to be acquired by the competent authority.

7. Respondents’ counsel relied on A. Sami Kutty and Another v. P V Chandran and Another,2022 0 Supreme (SC) 1738, wherein it was held that certificate of purchase issued by the tenancy authority is a conclusive proof and can in no way be disputed. The counsel further contended that the Sub Court was not having jurisdiction to entertain challenges that arises from the issuance of purchase certificate and thus the suit itself before the Sub court was devoid of merits and without jurisdiction.

8. He further takes support for his contentions from another decision, wherein it was held that the civil court is ousted from taking up a matter where the land in question is acquired and taken into possession by the Collector, and thus, in this case it is impossible for the Sub Court to partition the property that has already been taken into posse