The completion of a sale is not contingent on the actual payment of the whole price at the time of the execution of the sale deed. Possession not being taken does not render the sale ineffective. The intention that the property should pass on registration makes the sale complete.

G.M. AKBAR ALI,J.,

1. Appeals filed under Sec.96 of the Land Acquisition Act against the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.699 of 2000 dated 19.3.2003, O.S.No.258 of 2000 dated 27.10.2003 and O.S.No.259 of 2000 dated 27.10.2003.

2. In all these appeals, the issue involved is one and the same. Therefore, a common judgment is delivered.

3. The appeals are directed against the dismissal of the suit filed for with the prayers to cancel a sale deed in respect of the properties which are acquired by private negotiations from the respondents by the Government. The facts leading to the present appeals are as follows:

4. The Special Tahsildar (Adi Dravidar Welfare), Kangeyam submitted proposals for the purchase of land in Mudalipalayam village, Kangeyam, through private negotiations. The lands are to be acquired for the purpose of granting allotment to the landless Adi Dravidas under Adi Dravida Welfare scheme. The appellants offered their lands by their applications dated 13.11.1995 for acquisition by private negotiation. The Special Tahsildar, filed a report recommending the land value at Rs.1,00,000/-per acre. The Government constituted a Committee called District Level Private Negotiation Committee under the Chairmanship of District Collector and three other members viz., District Revenue officer, Revenue Divisional Officer cum Sub Collector and District Adi Dravida Welfare Officer, who shall be the Convenor.

5. The report of the Special Tahsildar was considered by the District Level Private Negotiation committee (hereinafter referred to as Committee) which met on 7.10.1996 and decided to purchase the land at the rate of Rs.1,75,000/-per acre. Necessary orders were passed by the Collector. A sale deed was prepared and presented before the Sub Registrar, Dharapuram on 5.11.1996 and the same was registered on 2.12.1996. The registration fees and other expenses were paid by the vendor. The land owner received part of their amounts however, the possession was not handed over. Later, it was found out that the sale consideration has been boosted up by showing sale deeds which did not reflect the correct market value. Several complaints were received stating certain irregularities in fixing the land value.

6. The Joint Director of Adi Dravida and Tribal Welfare Department verified various sales and has found that the vendors and the officials have colluded with each other and the correct sales statistics were not produced before the committee which fixed the land value. It was found that for a land purchased on 7.2.1996 for a sum of Rs.1,45,700/- by the respondent in A.S.No.887 of 2003, the value has been fixed at Rs.15,90,750/- on 7.10.1996.

7. Disciplinary actions were taken against the officials involved in the transaction. The land owner was informed that the Government is prepared to execute a release deed relinquishing the rights. Instead of appearing before the Collector, the land owner filed writ petition and this court while disposing of the writ petitions permitted the Government to go before the civil court for the relief of setting aside the sale deeds.

8. Therefore original suits were filed inter-alia stating that there is gross violation in fixing the land value and the Committee was misled and false information were given to the Committee only to obtain an exorbitant rate. The sale consideration was also not paid. Therefore, there is no effective sale and on these grounds, the state represented by the District Collector, Erode and the Adiri Dravidar Welfare Officer, Erode filed the suits in O.S.Nos.258, 259 of 2000, 699 of 2000. The defendants therein resisted the suit by filing their written statement stating that the sale is valid and the correct land value was fixed and the suit was also not maintainable.

9. The defendants made a counter claim of payment of sale consideration.

10. The parties went for trial separately in all the three suits before the Additional Sub Court, Erode. The learned Sub Judge