Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
R. SUBRAMANIAN, J.
S. Kotteswari – Appellant
Versus
The Special Tahsildhar Adi Dravidar Welfare, Deputy Tahsildhar Office, Sathyamangalam and Ors. – Respondents
CRP. NPD. No. 3781 of 2018 and CMP No. 21074 of 2018
Decided On : 05-10-2020
Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act - Sections 3(1), 54 and 55 - Contract Act - Section 202 - Powers of Attorney Act, 1882 - Sections 1-A and 2 - Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Sections 69 and 70 - Compensation for the land acquired - Enhanced the compensation - Determining the compensation payable for the land - whether, the right of an agent, who has got a power of attorney coupled with interest, would devolve on his heirs upon his death - whether with possession or without possession - counter claiming right over the property and contending that on the death of Karuppannan - Larger extent of land in Survey No. 178/2 of Gettavadi Village of Sathyamangalam Taluk, belonged entered into an agreement of Sale with one Karuppannan S/o. Subramaniam, agreeing to convey the said land measuring about 3 acres 27 cents for a consideration - On same date, the brothers executed a power of attorney in favour of the said Karuppannan, authorising him to deal with said property covered by the agreement of sale - Tamil Nadu published a notification under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 proposing to acquire the lands in Survey No. 178/2 measuring hectares equivalent to 3.23 acres. An award came to be passed determining compensation payable for the land - notice under Form III was issued to the Power Agent Karuppannan, the award was passed in favour of the original land owners viz., Kempappa and Mahadevappa - Power Agent Karuppannan, preferred an Appeal against the said award in CMA No. on the file of Sub Court, Gobichettipalayam – Held, She claims as a legatee under a Will said to have been executed by Karuppannan on 15.05.2006. Though, the Will has been produced, none of the attesting witnesses to the said Will have been examined counsel would contend that Will has been proved in the suit in OS No. 328 of 2007, the contesting respondent viz., second respondent is not a party to the said suit - Suit is one for a declaration that the petitioner is a Clause II heir of Karuppannan and for a consequential direction to the Authorities to issue a legal heirship certificate will not affect rights to second respondent, who is the owner of the property. A perusal of the Will also shows that there was no specific bequest of amounts lying to credit of CMA No. to petitioner by Karuppannan Will in its terms is very vague and it says that the amounts lying in Court deposit and the pension of Karuppannan are bequeathed the petitioner - safe to conclude that the said bequest would include the amounts lying to the credit of the CMA. Yet another factual aspect which compels me to reject claim of the petitioner is that the CMA Nowas filed by Karuppannan only as agent of Kempappa and Mahadevappa, Karuppannan during his life time never claimed that property belongs to him and that he has acquired an interest in the property - Machinery is provided - Petition is dismissed
ORDER :
R. Subramanian, J.
1. This matter is taken up for hearing through Video-Conferencing.
A third party whose application for payment out of the compensation for the land acquired under the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978, was dismissed by the Trial Court, has come up with this Civil Revision Petition.
2. The facts leading to the Civil Revision Petition are as follows:
The larger extent of land in Survey No. 178/2 of Gettavadi Village of Sathyamangalam Taluk, belonged to M/s. Kempappa and Mahadevappa. The said Kempappa and Mahadevappa entered into an agreement of Sale with one Karuppannan S/o. Subramaniam, agreeing to convey the said land measuring about 3 acres 27 cents for a consideration of Rs. 1,48,785/- on 12.03.1997. On the same date, the brothers executed a power of attorney in favour of the said Karuppannan, authorising him to deal with the said property covered by the agreement of sale.
3. While things stood thus, the Government of Tamil Nadu published a notification under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978, on 21.09.2000 proposing to acquire the lands in Survey No. 178/2 measuring about 1.31.16 hectares equivalent to 3.23 acres. An award came to be passed on 16.02.2001 determining the compensation payable for the land at Rs. 7,044/- per acre. Though the notice under Form III was issued to the Power Agent Karuppannan, the award was passed in favour of the original land owners viz., Kempappa and Mahadevappa. The Power Agent Karuppannan, preferred an Appeal against the said award in CMA No. 6 of 2001 on the file of the Sub Court, Gobichettipalayam.
4. The learned Subordinate Judge allowed the appeal and enhanced the compensation payable to Rs. 3,00,000/- per acre. The said fixation was challenged by the Government in CRP No. 1120 of 2005. Though the said Revision was eventually dismissed, as per the interim order made in the said Civil Revision Petition, the Power Agent Karuppannan, was permitted to withdraw 25% of the award amount unconditionally. Even during the pendency of the Civil Revision Petition, the said Karuppannan, died on 22.08.2007. The petitioner herein got herself impleaded in the Civil Revision Petition as the third respondent.
5. During the pendency of the Civil Revision Petition, the petitioner herein filed a suit in OS No. 328 of 2007 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Bhavani, seeking a declaration that she is a Clause II heir of Karuppannan, and a mandatory injunction directing the defendants in the said suit viz., the Government of Tamil Nadu represented by its District Collector, Erode and the Tahsildar, Bhavani to issue a Legal Heirship Certificate recognising her as the Clause II heir. Curiously the land owners viz., Kempappa and Mahadevappa, were not made parties to the said suit. The suit came to be decreed on 26.09.2008. Armed with the said decree and an unregistered Will said to have been executed by Karuppannan, the petitioner filed the instant application in IA No. 3 of 2014 seeking payment out of the award amount that is lying to the credit of CMA No. 6 of 2001.
6. The original land owners viz., Kempappa and Mahadevappa, were not made parties to the original petition and it is seen from the records that only Kempappa was impleaded as the second respondent in IA No. 3 of 2014 on 06.08.2016. Upon impleading Kempappa filed a counter claiming right over the property and contending that on the death of Karuppannan, on 22.08.2007, the Power of Attorney ceased and it is also claimed that power of attorney was cancelled even on 07.06.2006 and 30.10.2006. Therefore, according to the second respondent, the said Karuppannan had no right to execute the Will bequeathing the compensation amount as it is payable only to Kempappa and Mahadevappa.
7. The learned Subordinate Judge, Gobichettipalayam, who heard the application, concluded that the power of attorney will not confer title on Karuppannan and therefore,
SupremeToday
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
