Back
2019 Supreme(Mad) 2386
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. SUBBIAH, T. KRISHNAVALLI, JJ.
The Executive Officer, Arulmighu Mariamman Temple, Udumalpet, Coimbatore District – Appellant
Versus
The Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare, Pollachi & Others – Respondents
A.S.No. 289 of 2011
Decided on : 24-10-2019
For the Appellant :R.G. Narendhiran, Advocate
For the Respondents:J. Balagopal, Spl.G.P., V.G. Suresh Kumar for M/s. AL.Ganthimathi, Advocates, M. Venkadesh Kumar, Govt. Advocate (H.R. & C.E.).
Headnote:
Civil Procedure Code,1908 - Section 96 - Order 41 - Rule 1 - Inams Act - Section 8 - Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Lands for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act No.31 of 1978 - Section 4(2) - Compensation amount - Government of Union Territory - counsel for the appellant/Temple further submitted that meantime between notices were issued to land owners Section Act acquisition of land question and at the time of issuance of these notices Section said Act suit filed by Temple on file Sub-Court well as proceedings initiated by Revenue Divisional Officer were pending - Though said proceedings were pending names Hereditary were available Village which resulted in issuance notices Section said Act to Hereditary - Award was passed by Land Acquisition Officer meantime names of Hereditary were deleted from said suit filed by Temple was decreed as against Hereditary - Thereafter after passing Award Hereditary have raised dispute with regard to apportionment of amount of compensation by the Land Acquisition Officer - Accordingly Form of Reference was made referring dispute to Sub-Court –Held, Court based on Award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer relying upon judgment Supreme Court reported State Haryana is not correct as said decision of Apex Court is distinguishable on facts and same is not applicable present case on hand - Further Court below had not considered evidentiary value Court below had not considered oral evidence let in by appellant/Temple as also cross-examination who was examined on behalf of Hereditary - Hence this ground impugned order passed by the Reference Court/Sub-Court is not sustainable in law and same liable set aside - Furthermore remains that the Hereditary are not even doing any cultivating activities counsel for Hereditary private respondents herein submitted grant Settlement will indicate had been shows deemed have been granted to individuals rendering service the Hereditary - But is be noted proceedings of Settlement shows that rights vest with Temple from which it crystal clear that Temple is predominantly absolute owner of the lands/properties in question Court based on above said judgment of this Court is not necessary to delve into other decisions/citations relied on by counsel for parties same are distinguishable on facts this case Court are of the view that apportionment compensation for impugned land acquisition proceedings made by the Reference Court (Sub-Court) by the impugned order is not sustainable and hence same liable to be set aside –Appeal allowed
JUDGMENT :
R. Subbiah, J.
(Prayer: Appeal Suit (First Appeal) filed under Order 41 Rule 1 read with Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) against the order and final order dated 04.02.2011 in L.A.O.P.No.62 of 1998 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Udumalpet.)
This Appeal Suit (First Appeal) had been filed by the Executive Officer of Arulmighu Mariamman Temple, Udumalpet, Coimbatore District (hereinafter referred to as 'the Temple'), as against the order and final order dated 04.02.2011 in L.A.O.P.No.62 of 1998 on the file of the Sub-Court, Udumalpet, apportioning the compensation amount awarded under the land acquisition proceedings in the ratio of 25% to the Temple and 75% to the Hereditary Poojaris (for short, 'the Poojaris'), who are the respondents 2 to 8 and 10 to 19 herein.
2. Brief facts for disposal of the appeal, are as follows:
(i) An extent of 22.21 acres of dry land(s) in S.Nos.94 and 98 of Udumalpet Village, were granted to the appellant-Temple under the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, (Act No.30 of 1963) (for short, 'the Inams Act'). The Temple was in possession and enjoyment of the said land(s) for several decades. Even the Inam Register Entry made in the year 1936 discloses that the said land(s) belonged to the Temple. Considering the possession and enjoyment of the said land(s) by the Temple, the Settlement Tahsildar granted Ryotwari Patta through his proceedings in SR.No.360/1968/M.I.Act 30/1963/Udumalpet Taluk, dated 25.05.1968 (Ex.R-1) and in the said proceedings, it had been categorically stated that the Kudivaram Rights will vest with the Temple.
(ii) While so, notices dated 01.02.1997 and 20.05.1997 were issued by the Special Tahsildar (Adi Dravidar Welfare), Pollachi, under Section 4(2) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Lands for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act No.31 of 1978 (for short, 'the Act'), proposing to acquire the land(s) for the purpose of providing house-sites to the people belonging to Adi Dravidar Community. The Land Acquisition Officer selected S.No.94 of Udumaplet of an extent of 12 acres and the District Collector also sent the notice to the concerned parties. The enquiry was conducted on 19.02.1997 and 06.06.1997. After completion of the acquisition proceedings, Award was passed on 06.03.1998 in Award No.3/98 granting total compensation at Rs.34,52,843/- including solatium.
(iii) The Hereditary Poojaris of the Temple claimed that they are entitled for the compensation amount. Since there was dispute between the Temple and the Hereditary Poojaris, the Land Acquisition Officer referred the matter to a Civil Court for reference under Sections 10(2) and 11(2) of the said Act 31 of 1978 to the Sub-Court, Udumalpet and the matter was numbered as L.A.O.P.No.62 of 1998. In the said reference before the Court below, the appellant/Temple was shown as 13th respondent.
3. On the side of the appellant/Temple, before the Court below, two witnesses were examined, namely R.W.1 (Administrative Officer of the Temple) and R.W.2 (Village Administrative Officer (VAO)) and Exs.R-1 to R-13 and R-18 were marked. On the side of the other respondents before the Court below, Exs.R-14 to R-17 and R-19 to R-24 were marked. On the side of Hereditary Poojaris, one Manickam, the second respondent herein, was examined as R.W.3. Ex.X-1 series, namely copy of Chitta, Adangal and B-Register extract in the name of the Temple, were marked as witness side document.
4. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Subordinate Judge came to the conclusion that the Hereditary Poojaris were doing service to the Temple without getting any remuneration and they are in enjoyment of the land(s) in lieu of their service to the Temple, and therefore, they are also entitled for compensation amount, apart from the Temple. Accordingly, the learned Sub-Judge apportioned the compensation for the impugned land acquisition proceedings in the ratio of 25% to the Temple and 75% to the H
