SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1957 Supreme(Mad) 166

P.RAJAGOPALAN
Minnalavu Ammal – Appellant
Versus
Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai and others – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
N.C. Raghavachari, for Petitioners; Government Pleader and K. Vaithiswaran, for Respondents.

Judgement

JUDGMENT : An area of 4480 square feet in T. S. No. 2695 in Ward No. III, West Madurai, was acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. After determining the amount payable as compensation, the Acquisition Officer held that in his opinion the amount was payable to the registered owners, Poosari Asari and Sa-dayan Asari and that the amount payable to them had further to be apportioned between them and their lessees Kasthuri Naidu, and Narayanaswami Naidu.

Even before the Acquisition Officer, Vellai-kannu Asari and eight others claimed title to the land. Though the Acquisition Officer recorded his views that the money was payable to Kasthuri Naidu, Narayanaswami Naidu, Poosari Asari and Sadayan Asari, the Acquisition Officer referred the question under Sec. 31 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, as he was bound to do.

2. When the reference came up before the learned Additional Subordinate Judge of Madurai, he pointed out that the Acquisition Officer himself had decided the issue of title; the learned Sub-Judge directed the return of the reference and declined to proceed further with the adjudication of the dispute regarding title as between Kasthuri Naidu, Narayana



Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top