Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
P.R. SHIVAKUMAR, J.
Mathew Enterprises
Versus
Nithyanandam & Others
C.R.P. (NPD) Nos. 3579 & 3557 of 2013 & M.P. Nos. 1 & 2 of 2013
Decided On : 22-08-2014
The Court held that the revision petitioner, being a third party to the proceedings, cannot have the right to file a petition for review of the judgment of the Reference Court and that the learned Judge of the Reference Court has not committed any error in dismissing the applications filed by the revision petitioner seeking review of the judgment dated 03.09.2013 based on the compromise between first respondent and third respondent.
Fact of the Case:
The Government of Tamil Nadu acquired a total extent of 20.60 acres of land comprised in various survey numbers in Koyambedu village for its Urban Development scheme of K.K. Nagar, Chennai formulated by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. The acquisition proceedings were started in 1975. After passing of the award, the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was challenged in a writ petition before this Court in W.P. No. 6169 of 1983. When the said writ petition was pending, a memorandum of understanding came to be entered into between M. Nithyanandam and Poornachandran (respondents 1 and 2 in the revision) on the one hand and their father Munirathinam Naidu and E. Selvaraj (the third respondent in the revision) as partners of M/s. M.S. Enterprises on the other hand, for the sale of 18.50 acres out of the total extent of the land sought to be acquired for a sale consideration at the rate of Rs. 17 lakhs per acre. Though it was entered into for the sale of 18.50 acres even out of the said extent, (respondents 1 and 2) Nithyanandam and Poornachandran were given a right to reserve two acres for themselves. Subsequent to the signing of the memorandum of understanding, dated 02.03.1991, the Division Bench of this Court allowed the above said writ petition by an order dated 22.04.1991 on the ground of vagueness in the notification published under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. As against the said order of Division Bench of this Court, an appeal on Special Leave came to be filed by the State of Tamil Nadu before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1867 of 1992. Ultimately, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, by an order dated 17.01.1996, set aside the order of the Division Bench of this Court and upheld the acquisition of 20.60 acres, with a direction to the State Government to release an extent of 1.50 acres of land in the north eastern corner of the land comprised in Old Survey No. 167/1B abutting Poonamalli High Road, which has been re-numbered as Survey No. 2/2 and 2/3.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the revision petitioner, being a third party to the proceedings, cannot have the right to file a petition for review of the judgment of the Reference Court and that the learned Judge of the Reference Court has not committed any error in dismissing the applications filed by the revision petitioner seeking review of the judgment dated 03.09.2013 based on the compromise between first respondent and third respondent.
Issues: Whether the revision petitioner, being a third party to the proceedings, can have the right to file a petition for review of the judgment of the Reference Court.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the revision petitioner, being a third party to the proceedings, cannot have the right to file a petition for review of the judgment of the Reference Court and that the learned Judge of the Reference Court has not committed any error in dismissing the applications filed by the revision petitioner seeking review of the judgment dated 03.09.2013 based on the compromise between first respondent and third respondent. The Court relied on the following precedents: (1) In Ajjam Linganna and others vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Revenue Divisional Officer, Nizamabad and others, (2002) 9 SCC 426 (2) In Prayag Upnivesh Awas Exvam Nirman Sahkarai Samiti Ltd. vs. Allahabad Vikas Pradhikaran and another, (2003) 5 SCC 561 (3) In Shyamali Das vs. Illa Chowdhry and others, (2006) 12 SCC 300 (4) In Ram Prakash Agarwal and another vs. Gopi Krishnan and others, 2013 (3) LW 280: (2013) 11 SCC 296 (5) In Ramrameshwari Devi and others vs. Nirmala Devi and others, (2011) 8 SCC 249
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the revision petitions with cost of Rs. 25,000/-. M.P. No. 2 of 2013 in C.R.P. No. 3557 of 2013 was also dismissed.
1. C.R.P. No. 3557 of 2013 and C.R.P. No. 3579 of 2013 have been preferred respectively against the orders of the learned VI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court (Reference Court), Chennai dated 03.09.2013 made in I.A. No. 6356 of 2013 in L.A.O.P. No. 50 of 2011 and I.A. No. 6357 of 2013 in L.A.O.P. No. 51 of 2011 on the file of the said Court.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to in accordance with their rankings in C.R.P. No. 3579 of 2013 and at appropriate places if it becomes necessary specific rankings of the parties in the other Civil Revision Petition shall also be given.
3. Originally a total extent of 20.60 acres of land comprised in various survey numbers in Koyambedu village was sought to be acquired by the Government of Tamil Nadu for the Housing scheme of Tamil Nadu Housing Board in 1975. The objection of the land owners was rejected and the Government proceeded with the acquisition of the entire land. The same was challenged in W.P. No. 6169 of 1983 before this Court. A Division Bench of this Court allowed the writ petition on 22.04.1991 and quashed the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act on the question of vagueness in the notification published under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. Meanwhile, on 02.03.1991, a memorandum of understanding came to be entered into between Nithyanandam and Poornachandran (respondents 1 and 2 in the revisions) on the one hand shown as parties of the first part and their father Munirathinam Naidu and E. Selvaraj (3rd respondent in the revisions) as partners of M/s. M.S. Enterprises on the other hand shown to be parties of the second part in the said memorandum of understanding for the sale of 18.50 acres at the rate of Rs. 17 lakhs per acre. In the said memorandum of understanding, the respondents 1 and 2 herein, namely Nithyanandam and Poornachandran, were given a right to reserve for themselves two acres out of the total extent of 18.50 acres agreed to be sold. The said memorandum of understanding was cancelled by the respondents 1 and 2 on 02.11.1991.
4. A suit came to be filed as O.S. No. 7704 of 1991 on the file of the City Civil Court, Chennai in the name of M/s. M.S. Enterprises represented by its partner Selvaraj against Nithyanandam, Poornachandran and others for a declaration that the cancellation of Memorandum dated 02.03.1991 was invalid and unenforceable in law and also for an injunction. After getting an order of status quo in the said suit, claiming to be a partner in M/s. M.S. Enterprises, Selvaraj entered into a memorandum of understanding with M/s. Southern Housing Corporation Limited, nominating the said company as purchaser to purchase the properties concerned in the memorandum of understanding dated 02.03.1991. He then filed another suit in O.S. No. 6485 of 1992 in the name of M/s. M.S. Enterprises represented by Selvaraj. It came to be filed on the file of the City Civil Court against Nithyanandam and Poornachandran, (the respondents 1 and 2 herein), for a declaration that the memorandum of understanding between M/s. M.S. Enterprises and M/s. Southern Housing Corporation Limited was binding on Nithyanandam and Poornachandran, the respondents 1 and 2 herein. Nithyanandam and Poornachandran filed applications under Order VII Rule 11 CPC in both the cases. The learned VI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai rejected the plaints in both the suits by orders dated 27.12.2004.
5. When an appeal on special leave came to be filed by the State before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.A. No. 1957 of 1992 challenging the order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 22.04.1991 made in W.P. No. 6169 of 1983, the Hon'ble Supreme Court differed from the view of the Division bench of the High Court and held that the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, declaration issued under Section 6 of the said Act and also the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer were not found with any
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
