Back
MADRAS HIGH COURT
T.Raja, J.
T.Amuthan Anthony - Appellants
Versus.
C.S.Balakrishnan& Others - Respondents
S.A.No.396 of 2011
Decided on : 5.11.2014
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 9 – Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2003 – Section 24 – Land Acquisition Act – Section 6 – Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – Tamil Nadu Housing Board Act, 1961 – Section 138 – Mandatory Injunction – Plaintiff before the trial Court is the appellant in this second appeal. – The plaintiff-Mr. T.Amuthan Anthony filed two suits before the City Civil Court, Chennai, namely, the suit in O.S.No.188 of 1996 was filed against the Chairman, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, one Mr. C.S.Balakrishnan, one Mr.K.Damodaran, the Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, the Member Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority and the Sub Registrar, Anna Nagar seeking for a judgment and decree of mandatory injunction, more particularly, against the first defendant to cancel the allotment order issued in favour of the second defendant-Mr.C.S.Balakrishnan along with permanent injunction against the fourth and fifth defendants restraining them from sanctioning any building plan in favour of the second defendant as well for permanent injunction restraining the sixth defendant from registering any kind of documents to be presented by the second defendant along with costs and one another suit in O.S.No.2350 of 2002 was filed against the sole defendant-Mr.C.S.Balakrishnan for a judgment and decree of permanent injunction restraining the sole defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property along with costs, on the ground that the suit property to an extent of 38 cents covered in Survey No.207/13 part, equivalent to old Baimash No.482, was purchased in the name of one Mr.Ammavasai, the brother of the plaintiffs grandfather Mr.Vaitan and registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Sembium, Madras bearing Sale Deed No.1702/1914. – Held, Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the benefit of section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2003 in view of the concurrent finding of fact recorded by all the Courts with regard to his settled possession of the suit property is concerned, Mrs.Chitra Sampath, learned senior counsel for the plaintiff further argued that as there has been a finding in favour of the plaintiff that he has been in physical possession of the suit property, as there was no compensation paid to the plaintiffs land, he is entitled to the benefit of Section 24(2). – Repelling the submission, the learned counsel for the second defendant submitted that the plaintiff cannot assail the validity of the land acquisition proceedings in a civil suit, since the issue whether a civil suit is maintainable to challenge the acquisition proceedings is no longer res integra. – In two decisions of the Apex Court, he pleaded, it has been clearly held that the civil Court cannot go into the validity or otherwise of the notification issued under Section 4(1) or the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. – It has been held that by necessary implication, the power of the Civil Court to take cognizance of the case under Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code stands excluded and a Civil Court has no jurisdiction to go into the question of validity or legality of the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act and declaration made under Section 6 of the Act except by the High Court in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India so the civil suit itself was not maintainable. – Appeal Dismissed
The plaintiff before the trial Court is the appellant in this second appeal. For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as "the plaintiff" and "the defendants'' in this judgment. The plaintiff-Mr. T.Amuthan Anthony filed two suits before the City Civil Court, Chennai, namely, the suit in O.S.No.188 of 1996 was filed against the Chairman, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, one Mr. C.S.Balakrishnan, one Mr.K.Damodaran, the Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, the Member Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority and the Sub Registrar, Anna Nagar seeking for a judgment and decree of mandatory injunction, more particularly, against the first defendant to cancel the allotment order issued in favour of the second defendant-Mr.C.S.Balakrishnan along with permanent injunction against the fourth and fifth defendants restraining them from sanctioning any building plan in favour of the second defendant as well for permanent injunction restraining the sixth defendant from registering any kind of documents to be presented by the second defendant along with costs and one another suit in O.S.No.2350 of 2002 was filed against the sole defendant-Mr.C.S.Balakrishnan for a judgment and decree of permanent injunction restraining the sole defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property along with costs, on the ground that the suit property to an extent of 38 cents covered in Survey No.207/13 part, equivalent to old Baimash No.482, was purchased in the name of one Mr.Ammavasai, the brother of the plaintiff's grandfather Mr.Vaitan and registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Sembium, Madras bearing Sale Deed No.1702/1914. Subsequently, after a partition between the brothers of his grandfather Mr.Vaithan and Mr.Ammavasai, the said Mr.Vaitan acquired the right over the property of 18 cents and obtained the patta. It was also the further claim of the plaintiff that since the suit property is the ancestral property of the plaintiff's family, after the death of his grandfather Mr.Vaithan and his father Mr.Thirumani, the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. During his continuous possession, when he had put up construction in the property, one Mr.P.Arjunan and Mr.Murali started to interfere with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same, hence, the plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.8859 of 1995 on the file of IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras seeking for permanent injunction and the same came to be decreed on 17.4.96. While so, the second defendant, claiming to have got allotment of the suit property from the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, started to interfere with the plaintiff's possession. Consequent thereto, the plaintiff filed C.S.No.188 of 1996 against the first defendant-Tamil Nadu Housing Board, the second defendant-Mr.C.S.Balakrishnan and others for mandatory injunction against the first defendant to cancel the allotment order issued in favour of the second defendant and for other reliefs. After the filing of the first suit in O.S.No.188 of 1996 seeking a decree for permanent injunction against the defendants therein, the plaintiff has also filed another suit in O.S.No.2350 of 2002 against the sole defendant Mr.C.S.Balakrishnan, who claimed to be an allottee by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board in respect of the suit property, for the reason that when the plaintiff had already filed W.P.No.11624 of 1997 before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the acquisition proceedings, inasmuch as the second defendant-Mr.C.S.Balakrishnan was said to have been allotted with the suit property by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, this Court dismissed the said writ petition observing that the plaintiff has got an alternative remedy of filing a suit for identification of the suit property by adducing oral and documentary evidence, namely, the land in Survey No.207/13 part of Tirumangalam village, Saidapet Taluk and whether t
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
