Boundaries prevail over measurement in determining land ownership, and the application of estoppel should be carefully considered in ownership disputes.

Per V. PERIYAKARUPPIAH, J

This appeal is directed against the Judgment and award passed by the lower Court in L.A.O.P. No.9 of 1998 referred under Section 30 of Land Acquisition Act.

2. The lands in R.S. No. 153/2-B corresponding to S. No. 754/3 part, 723/1, 723/2, 723/4, 723/5 and 735 part measuring an extent of 31A 20 Cs in Kottucherry village of Kottuchery commune, Karaikkal Taluk, Union of Pondicherry was acquired along with other properties for the purpose of extending the channel Nana Vaikal at Kottucherry Commune which required improvements for the public purpose. The Land Acquisition Officer had specified with the title of the claimant in respect of 21 A 80 Ca on the basis of the partition deed in between the claimant and his brothers taken place in the year 1955 and had awarded compensation to the said extent of land and for the balance extent of 9A 40 Ca, the Land Acquisition Officer had come to a conclusion that no other person reported claiming the said extent of property. He would again refer that the present claimant as the fourth respondent in the said proceedings had claimed the balance extent of land as belonging to him. But the Land Acquisition Officer did not see that he is entitled to the said balance extent of the property. Therefore, he had referred to the Tribunal under Section 30 and 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act to decide the entitlement of the balance award amount in favour of the real owner of the acquired property.

3. On such referral, the Land Tribunal cum Additional District Judge, Pondicherry at Karaikkal had taken reference in L.A.O.P. No. 9 of 1998 and had examined the claimant as R.W.1 and admitted Exhibits B-1 and B-2 as documentary evidence of the claimant and had come to a conclusion that the claim of the fourth respondent/claimant was not proved and, therefore, dismissed the said claim. Aggrieved against the said order of lower Court, the present appeal has been preferred by the claimant/4th respondent before the lower Court.

4. The point for consideration is as to whether the order passed by the lower Court dismissing the claim of the appellant over the title of remaining extent of 0.09.40 hectares of land is liable to be set aside or not.

5. Heard Mr. T. Susindran, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. R. Natarajan, the learned Government Pleader appearing for R1 and R2. There is no appearance for R3 to R5.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant/4th respondent/claimant would submit in his argument that the lower Court had not considered the case of the claimant properly and had dismissed the claim without any basis. He would further submit that the lower Court had not approached the case of the claimant with the proper preception of the partition deed produced in Exhibits B-1 and B-2 but had wrongly come to decision both on facts and law. He would again submit that no other person has got title and possession in the said S. No. and its extent except the claimant and it was not considered by the lower Court. He would further submit that the claimant had obtained title through partition deed Exhibits B-1 and B-2 and the extent given in different versions should have been compared with the boundaries of the land possessed by the claimant and the lower Court should have accepted that the balance extent of land in the same S. No. was belonging to claimant. He would further submit that the view taken by the lower Court with regard to the partition deed Exhibit B-1 was not correct and the lower Court had simply referred to the measurement alone when no other person has claimed the title and possession over the said balance extent. He would further submit that as per the boundaries mentioned in Exhibit B-1, the balance extent of 0.09.40 hectares was also covered and therefore, the claimant should have been found to be the true owner of the balance extent. He would further submit that the doctrine of estoppels applied by the lower Court against the claimant is not sustaina