IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 24.09.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL A.S.No.848 of 2006 1.Ganesan 2.Venkatesan ... Appellants/Claimants Vs. 1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, (Land Acquisition Officer) Karpa Thiruvarur Town, Tiruvarur District, Tiruvarur. 2.Ramachandran ... Respondents/LAO & 3rd Claimant Appeal Suit filed under Section 54 of Land Acquisition Act, against the Judgment and Decree dated 18.11.2005 made in L.A.O.P.No.46 of 2002 on the file of the Learned Sub Judge, Tiruvarur. For Appellants : Mr.D.Veerasekaran For 1st Respondent : Mr.V.Ravi, Special Govt. Pleader (A.S) For 2nd Respondent : Mr.P.Subramani J U D G M E N T The Appellants/Claimants have filed this Appeal as against the Award dated 18.11.2005 in L.A.O.P.No.46 of 2002 passed by the Learned Sub Judge, Tiruvarur. 2.The trial Court viz., Learned Sub Judge, Tiruvarur, on an appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, while passing the Award in L.A.O.P.No.46 of 2002, dated 18.11.2005, has, among other things, 'directed the 3rd Claimant (2nd Respondent in Appeal) to receive the amount lying in Court deposit and in respect of the Appellants/Claimants 1 and 2 it dismisses the LAOP petition without costs.' 3.Before the trial Court, on the side of Claimants, witnesses C.W.1 to C.W.6 have been examined and documents Exs.C.1 to C.24 have been marked. On the side of 1st Respondent/Land Acquisition Officer, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Tiruvarur, no one has been examined as a witness and no document has been marked. 4.Being aggrieved against the Award dated 18.11.2005 in L.A.O.P.No.46 of 2002 passed by the trial Court viz., Sub Judge, Tiruvarur, the Appellants as an aggrieved person have filed the present Appeal before this Court. 5.The Point that arises for consideration in this Appeal is: 'Whether the Award dated 18.11.2005 in L.A.O.P.No.46 of 2002 passed by the Learned Sub Judge, Tiruvarur in directing the 2nd Respondent/3rd Claimant to receive the amount lying in Court deposit? The Contentions, Discussions and Findings on point: 6.According to the Learned Counsel for the Appellants/Claimants 1 and 2, the trial Court has not appreciated the fact that the 1st Appellant /1st Claimant is the original purchaser of an entire extent of 0.01.5 Ares i.e. 13 cents of land in R.S.No.102/13B of Sarguneswarapuram Village, Kodavasal Taluk, Tiruvarur District and further that the trial Court has failed to take note of the fact that the 2nd Appellant/2nd Claimant has got the property by way of Partition to an extent of 8 cents in R.S.No.102/13 B and that the land acquisition has been only to an extent of 3 ¾ cents. 7.The contention of the Learned Counsel for the Appellants is that the 2nd Respondent/3rd Claimant has no right over the property and no title has been transferred in his name, but this aspect of the matter has not been adverted to by the trial Court in proper perspective. 8.Lastly, it is the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Appellants that the trial Court has not looked into the material facts of the case in a proper perspective which has resulted in the impugned award being passed against the Appellants/Claimants 1 and 2 and therefore, prays for allowing the Appeal. 9.Per contra, it is the contention of the Learned Counsel for the 2nd Respondent/3rd Claimant that the trial Court, in its Award, has clearly observed that in respect of the acquired land even before issuance of Section 4(1) Notice of the Land Acquisition Act on 03.12.1985 date itself, the 2nd Appellant/2nd Claimant has executed a Sale Agreement in favour of the 2nd Respondent/3rd Claimant and on 15.04.1996 the 2nd Appellant/2nd Claimant in favour of the 2nd Respondent/3rd Claimant has executed a Sale Agreement in Rs.10/- non judicial stamp paper and Ex.C.7 Sale Agreement dated 03.12.1985 and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Ex.C.9 Punja Land Agreement dated 15.04.1996 are before the issuance of Notice under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act and further, the trial Court has relied on the decision Achal Reddi V. Ramakrishna Reddiare and others AIR 1990 Supreme Court at page 553 wherein it is held that if a vendor on the basis of Sale Agreement hands over possession of a property in favour of a purchaser and if the purchaser enjoys the same, then, the vendor has no right in the said property and that decision has been held to be squarely applicable to the facts of the present case and accordingly, held that the 2nd Respondent/3rd Claimant is entitled to receive the compensation amount lying the Court deposit in respect of the acquired land and the same need not be disturbed by this Court at this stage of the Appeal. 10.The 1st Respondent/Referring Officer, in its Award No.4/2000- 2001 dated 30.10.2000 has referred the Reference to the trial Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act I of 1894 because of the fact that the shares and actual ownership of the land in respect of the Appellants/Claimants 1 and 2 and the 2nd Respondent/3rd Claimant has not been determined. 11.It is to be noted that in the Award No.4 of 2000-2001 item No.3 in respect of 0.03.0 Hectares land in R.S.No.102/13B Sarguneswarapuram Village, Kodavasal Taluk acquired for the provision of approach road to the bridge built across Arasalar River, the Appellants/Claimants 1 and 2 and the 2nd Respondent/3rd Claimant have been mentioned as land owners who are mentioned as an interested persons and that a total compensation of 48,430/- has been awarded. 12.In the counter statement filed by the 2nd Appellant/2nd Claimant, it is mentioned that the claim of 2nd Respondent/3rd Claimant is not sustainable either on facts or on legal plane and that he has no right, title or interest in the acquired lands and further, the contract of sale entered into by the 2nd Respondent/3rd Claimant has lapsed by limitation. 13.Added further, in the counter statement filed before the trial Court, the 1st Appellant has also stated that the 2nd Respondent/ 3rd Claimant has no manner of right and title in the acquired land. 14.It is to be borne in mind that the true area of the acquired land is 0.18.0 Hectares situated in the Village of Sarguneswarapuram Village, Kodavasal Taluk in registration sub District of Kodavasal in the District of Tiruvarur and registered in the name of or occupied by persons mentioned in the Award No.4/2000-2001 dated 30.10.2000. The total compensation for the land awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer is Rs.2,07,274/-. Section 4(1) Notification has been published on 22.12.1999 in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette bearing No.484 Part VI, Section I page 1. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 15.It is the evidence of C.W.1 (1st Appellant/ 1st Claimant) that in the acquired land, he has an interest of 1.5 Ares and the balance extent of land belongs to the 2nd Appellant/2nd Claimant. 16.The evidence of C.W.2 (2nd Appellant/2nd Claimant) is that the Sale Agreement, dated 08.12.1985, in respect of 8 cents between him and the 2nd Respondent/3rd Claimant, has expired and therefore, the 2nd Respondent/3rd Claimant has no right in the acquired land. 17.Further, the evidence of C.W.2 (2nd Appellant/2nd Claimant) is to the effect that he has received a sum of Rs.1,060/- as a sale amount as agreed to by him from the 2nd Respondent/3rd Claimant. That apart, it is the evidence of C.W.2 (2nd Appellant/2nd Claimant) that the land in issue has been acquired after the year 1990 and that during the year 1986-1987 he has returned the half of the sale amount to the 2nd Respondent/3rd Claimant but this fact has not been mentioned by him in his counter statement. 18.It is the evidence of C.W.3 (2nd Respondent/3rd Claimant) that he has entered into a Sale Agreement in respect of 8 cents of land in Survey No.102/13B with the 2nd Appellant/2nd Claimant as per Ex.C.7 dated 03.12.1985 and the 2nd Appellant/2nd Claimant has handed over possession to him and from 03.12.1985 he has been enjoyment of the said property and in respect of the acquired land, the 2nd Appellant/2nd Claimant has executed a Document-Ex.C.9 dated 15.04.1996 and since the entire sale amount has been received by the 2nd Appellant/ 2nd Claimant from him, he has no right over the acquired land and the 1st Appellant/1st Claimant is not connected with the acquired land. 19.It is the evidence of C.W.3 (2nd Respondent/3rd Claimant) that he has not obtained a Sale Deed from the 2nd Appellant/2nd Claimant in respect of Survey No.102/13B. 20.The evidence of C.W.4 (V.A.O. of Kodavasal) is to the effect that the acquired land of 8 cents is in enjoyment of the (2nd Respondent/3rd Claimant) and he has issued Ex.C.24-Certificate dated 06.11.1987 to that effect. 21.C.W.5, in his evidence, has stated that the land of 8 cents mentioned in Ex.C.9-Punja Land Sale Agreement dated 15.04.1996 has been in enjoyment of the 2nd Respondent/3rd Claimant. 22.A scrutiny of Ex.C.9-Punja Land Sale Agreement shows that on 03.12.1985 the 2nd Appellant/2nd Claimant has handed over the possession and enjoyment of 0.08 cents out of 0.27 cents in Survey No.102/13 in Kodavasal Taluk in Sarguneswarapuram Village to the 2nd Respondent/3rd Claimant. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 23.C.W.6, in his evidence, has stated that in the year 1996 an Agreement has been entered into between the 2nd Appellant/2nd Claimant and the 2nd Respondent/3rd Claimant and the said Agreement -Ex.C.9 has been written by him and in the said Agreement, the 1st Appellant has signed and further the witnesses have also signed. C.W.6, in his cross examination, has stated that at the time of Ex.C.9- Agreement period the value of the land will be Rs.1,060/- and in Ex.C.9-Sale Agreement, he has not affixed his signature. 24.At this juncture, this Court pertinently points out the decision Bhagirathamma and another V. Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Hyderabad and another AIR 1978 Andhra Pradesh 10 wherein it is held as follows: "When there is a dispute as to who is entitled to the compensation and the matter is referred for decision by the Civil Court under S. 30 of the Act, the effect of that decision is that the person whose title is upheld in those proceedings will be entitled to whatever compensation that may be determined in the proceedings under S.18 of the Act." 25.This Court worth recalls the decision Arumugham V. T.L.Radhakrishnan and another 1996-2-L.W. 593 at page 594, it is held that 'It is the admitted case of the petitioner that he is only an agreement holder. More than that he has no interest in the land. He may be entitled to get back the advance amount, which he has paid to the first respondent. For that, the remedy is only to file a suit and get the compensation amount attached. The petitioner cannot be said to be a person entitled for any compensation." 26.That apart, in the decision Murad Khan and others V. Abdul Raziq and others AIR 1936 Peshawar 198, it is laid down as follows: "The Secretary of State is not a necessary or a proper party to a suit for recovery of compensation, alleged to have been paid to a wrong person. Once compensation has been awarded under the Act and either no reference has been made to the Court or a reference has been finally decided, the Secretary of State and his agents have no further liability but the liability of any person who has received the whole or any part of the compensation to pay the same to the person lawfully entitled thereto is not affected." 27.In the decision Sujan Singh V. Mohan Chand AIR 1983 Punjab & Haryana 180, it is held as follows: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "Thus if it is once held that the agreement to sell, itself, does not create any interest over the property in dispute, then the plaintiff cannot be held to be entitled to the compensation awarded by the Collector with respect to the suit property. The question of payment of compensation to the plaintiff would have arisen only if, by an agreement of sale, any charge was created on the suit property. The plaintiff's right in the suit property, if any, will arise only after the execution of the sale deed in his favour. If, on account of certain eventualities, the agreement as such could not be legally enforced as having become impossible of its performance, then the question of allowing any compensation awarded with respect to the suit property, does not arise on that basis". (Emphasis supplied) 28.As far as the present case is concerned, C.W.3 (2nd Respondent/3rd Claimant) has made a claim that the 2nd Appellant/2nd Claimant in respect of the acquired land has executed a Sale Agreement-Ex.C.9 dated 15.04.1996 in his favour and except himself no one has any right in the acquired land and that he has not obtained a Sale Deed in respect of the acquired land of 8 cents in Survey No.102/13 B from the 2nd Appellant/2nd Claimant. However, this claim has been repudiated by the 2nd Appellant/2nd Claimant stating that the Ex.C.7-Agreement dated 03.12.1985 entered into between himself and the 2nd Respondent/3rd Claimant has expired and further that he has paid back half of the sale amount to the 2nd Respondent/3rd Claimant in the year 1986 or in the year 1987 and this fact he has not made mention of in his counter statement. 29.Besides the above, C.W.2 (2nd Appellant/2nd Claimant) has stated that, in his evidence, it is not correct to state that he has executed the Sale Agreement-Ex.C.9 dated 15.04.1996 in Rs.10/- non judicial stamp paper in favour of the 2nd Respondent/3rd Claimant. 30.A person claiming a portion of compensation money awarded by the Collector in land acquisition proceedings is entitled to maintain a Civil Suit to establish his claim as per decision Chandu Lal V. Ladli Begum 49 IC 659. 31.Inasmuch as there is a dispute of title in respect of the acquired land of 8 cents in Survey No.102/13 B in Sarguneswarapuram Village, Kodavasal Taluk between the Appellants/Claimants 1 and 2 and the 2nd Respondent/3rd Claimant, this Court opines that the dispute regarding the title/ownership of 8 cents in respect of the acquired land by the 1st Respondent/Referring Officer is to be resolved by a competent civil forum and in this regard, it is open to the parties concerned to approach the competent Civil Court and to file a Civil https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Suit seeking appropriate relief thereto in the manner known to law and in accordance with law by impleading the 1st Respondent/Referring Officer and viewed in that perspective, the Award passed by the Learned Sub Judge, Tiruvarur in L.A.O.P.No.46 of 2002 dated 18.11.2005, in directing the 2nd Respondent/3rd Claimant to receive the compensation amount lying in Court deposit and dismissing the LAOP petition in respect of Appellants/Claimants 1 and 2, is not correct in the eye of law and is set side to prevent an aberration of justice and resultantly, the Appeal succeeds. 32.In the result, the Appeal is allowed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The Award passed by the Learned Sub Judge, Tiruvarur dated 18.11.2005 in L.A.O.P.No.46 of 2002 is set aside by this Court for the reasons assigned in this Appeal. It is open to the parties concerned to approach the competent Civil Court and to file a Civil Suit seeking appropriate relief thereto in the manner known to law and in accordance with law by impleading the 1st Respondent/ Referring Officer. Sd/- Asst.Registrar /True Copy/ Sub.Asst.Registrar Sgl To 1. The Sub Judge, Tiruvarur. 2. The Sessions Officer, VR, Section, High Court, Madras. + 1 cc to Mr. D. Veerasekaran, Advocate SR.71248 A.S.No.848 of 2006 LA(CO) Eu 27.11.10 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/