Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 2133
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. VENUGOPAL
State of Tamilnadu The District Collector, Kancheepuram & Another
Versus
Kannigammal
A.S.No.468 of 2002
Decided on : 12-05-2010
For the Appellants:V. Ravi, Special Govt. Pleader (AS). For the Respondent:V. Bhiman, Advocate, M/s. Sampathkumar, Associates Advocate.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that a claimant must have a valid and legal right to the land in order to maintain a suit, and the court's decision is influenced by the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 and Standing Order 41.
Headnote:
Compensation - Land Dispute - Land Acquisition Act 1894 - Standing Order 41 - Assignment Order - Poramboke Lands
Fact of the Case:
The Respondent/Plaintiff filed a suit claiming right to the suit land and seeking declaration of title, permanent injunction, and compensation for land acquired for a water supply project. The Appellants/Defendants challenged the suit, arguing that the Respondent/Plaintiff had no right to the land as it was poramboke land and had been assigned to another individual by the government.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suit was not maintainable as the Respondent/Plaintiff did not have a valid claim to the land. Therefore, the court dismissed the suit and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court.
Issues: The main issues were whether the suit filed by the Respondent/Plaintiff was maintainable, whether the Respondent/Plaintiff was entitled to claim the relief of declaration of title, permanent injunction, and compensation, and whether the Appellants/Defendants were liable to pay the claimed compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Respondent/Plaintiff did not have a valid claim to the land as it was originally classified as poramboke land and had been assigned to another individual with specific conditions. The court also cited the Land Acquisition Act 1894 and Standing Order 41 to support its decision.
Final Decision: The Appeal Suit was allowed, the judgment and decree of the trial court were set aside, and the suit was dismissed. Each party was directed to bear their own costs in the appeal.
The Appellants/Defendants have preferred this Appeal as against the Judgment dated 28.02.2001 in O.S.No.9/98 passed by the Learned Subordinate Judge, Maduranthagam.
2. The learned Subordinate Judge, Maduranthagam in the original suit filed by the Respondent/Plaintiff in O.S.No.9/98 (O.S.No.35/95 on the file of Principal Judge, Chegalpattu) had passed a judgment on 28.02.2001 declaring the Respondent/Plaintiffs right to the suit A Schedule property viz. the land and also granted the relief of permanent injunction in respect of C Schedule property of the suit and in regard to the B Schedule property awarded a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-as compensation together with 30% solatium to be paid within one month and also awarded 12% interest per annum for the due amount till the date of payment.
3. Before the trial court, onthe side of the Respondent/Plaintiff, witnesses P.W1 to 6 were examined and Exs.P1 to P15 were marked. On the side of the Appellants/Defendants, witness D.W1 was examined and Ex.C1 was marked.
4. TheLearned Special Government Pleader (AS) submits that the trial court had committed an error in awarding the compensation amount to the Respondent/Plaintiff and also the trial court had not appreciated an important fact that the suit lands are poramboke lands over which the Respondent/Plaintiff has no manner of right whatsoever.
5. It is the further contention on the side of the Appellants/Defendants that the trial court had failed to note that the burden of Proof was on the Respondent/Plaintiff to prove the title and that Respondent/Plaintiff had purchased the property from an individual who has no manner of right over the suit property.
6. Added further, the assignment given to the vendor of the Respondent/Plaintiff was cancelled and the Government took over the lands, but these aspects of the matter were not taken into account by the trial court in real perspective.
7. That apart, even after assigning of the properties by the Appellants, the Respondents vendor or the Assignee had not cultivated the lands within the three years period specified and further not acted in consonance with the conditions prescribed in the Assignment Order.
8. In short, the contention of the Appellants/Defendants is that the Respondent/Plaintiff is not in actual possession and enjoyment of the suit property and more over the title of the suit property is vested with the Government and as such the Respondent/Plaintiff had no cause of action to file the present suit and therefore prays for allowing the present appeal in the interest of justice.
9. Thepoints arise for determination in this appeal are -
.(1) Whether the suit filed by the Respondent/Plaintiff is maintainable in law ?
.(2) Whether the Respondent/Plaintiff is entitled to claim the relief of declaration of her title in respect of A Schedule land ?
.(3) Whether the Respondent/Plaintiff is entitled to claim the relief of permanent injunction in respect of C Schedule land ?
.(4) Whether the Appellants/Defendants are to be directed to pay a sum of Rs.6,00,500/-to the Respondent/Plaintiff as compensation in respect of B Schedule lands acquired for Krishna Water Supply Project, Maduranthagam alongwith interest @ 12% and solatium @ 30% ?
Findings on Point No.1 :
10. The Learned Special Government Pleader (AS) submits that the A Schedule properties mentioned in the plaint namely viz. Survey No.185/1B, 2 acres and 96 cents with well and Survey No.185/2, 2 acres and 4 cents, totalling in all, 5 acres was originally classified as Dry assessed waste (Government Poramboke) and it was assigned to one Kannigammal w/o Radhakrishnan with a condition that the lands assigned ought not to be alienated within a period of ten years and further the assigned lands must be brought under cultivation within a period of three years from the date of assignment, but the assignee Kannigammal violated the condition.
11. Continuing further, the learned Special Government Pleader (AS) for the appel
