The suit in C.S.No.553 of 2005 is filed by the plaintiff for recovery of possession of the schedule mentioned properties, for damages for use and occupation at Rs.50,000/- per month for costs.
2. The contention of the plaintiff is that the suit properties measuring about 10.51 acres in S.No.24/12, 24/13 and 25/1 of Thiruvanmiyur Village belonged to the plaintiff. The 1st defendant viz., The Collector, Land Acquisition trespassed over the properties and handed over possession of the same to the 2nd defendant, viz., the Indian Institute of Technology, Madras. According to the plaintiff, there was no notification under the Land Acquisition Act or any other Act at the time of acquiring these lands from the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, the act of the 1st defendant in handing over the lands to the 2nd defendant would amount to trespass by the 1st defendant and the occupation of the 2nd defendant would be illegal occupation. It is also averred that the plaintiff issued a notice on 11.12.2004 under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure to the first defendant inter alia demanding surrender of possession and damages for use and occupation. The said notice did not evoke any response from the 1st defendant. However, the 2nd defendant sent a reply through their counsel seeking further details. In this back drop, the plaintiff has come forward with the above suit.
3. The 1st defendant had filed the written statement, contending that the Village of Tiruvanmiyur was within the jurisdiction of the District Collector of Chengalpattu till 1979 and it was included in Chennai District only thereafter, and therefore, the records relating to the acquisition were not available. The title of the plaintiff to the suit land was admitted. It was further contended by the 1st defendant that the lands in question were acquired even in the year 1962-1963, for the expansion of the Indian Institute of Technology, Madras and after following the due process of law, the acquisition process was completed and the lands in question were handed over to the 2nd defendant, even in the year 1963.
4. The 2nd defendant filed a written statement, originally contending that it is not in possession of any portion of the suit property. Subsequently, an additional written statement was filed by the 2nd defendant, wherein it was stated that the lands were acquired by the Government by following the procedure prescribed in the Land Acquisition Act 1 of 1894. A declaration under Section 6 of the said Act, was published in the Government gazzette dated 21.03.1962 and an award was also passed in Award No.4/63 dated 14.03.1963, thereafter, possession was handed over to the 2nd defendant by the land acquisition officer and the revenue records was also mutated in the name of the 2nd defendant. The 2nd defendant would sum up its contentions by stating that the suit property has been acquired after following the due process of law as set out under the Land Acquisition Act 1 of 1894 and therefore the plaintiff cannot claim ownership over the property and seek recovery of possession.
5. On the above pleadings, the following issues were framed by this Court on 22.09.2010.
1.Whether the suit is barred by law of limitation?
2.Whether the suit is barred by non-joinder of necessary parties?
3.Was there a notification by the first defendant under Land Acquisition Act, in respect of the land comprised in Survey Nos.24/12. 24/13 and 25/1 in Thiruvanmiyur Village?
4.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim compensation?
5.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of damages to the tune of Rs.50,000/- for use and occupation from the date of plaint till date of recovery of possession?
6.Whether this Court is not having territorial jurisdiction to entertain this suit?
7.Whether the schedule mentioned properties comprised in Survey Nos.24/12, 24/13 and 25/1 located in Thiruvanmiyur Village, Chennai were acquired by the first defendant and handed over to the second defendant?
8.Whether the suit against the second defendant is maintainable?
9.To what other reliefs, are the parties entitled to?
6. I have heard Mr.A.K.Sriram, learned counsel appearing for the M/s.A.S.Kailasam and Associates for the plaintiff, Mr.T.Jayaramaraj, Government Advocate (Civil Side) appearing for the 1st defendant and Mr.Karthick Mukundan, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd defendant.
7. On the side of the plaintiff, P.W.1 was examined and Ex.P1, viz. A Register of Tiruvanmiyur Village and Ex.P2, the office copy of the legal notices dated 11.12.2004 were filed. On the side of the 1st defendant, D.W.1 and D.W.2 were examined and Exs.D1 to D5 were marked, on the side of the 2nd defendant, D.W.3 was examined and Exs.D6 and D7 were marked.
Issue No.1
8. This issue relates to the question of limitation. Acquisition proceedings are said to have taken place in the year 1962 and 1963. it is also seen that awards have been passed and possession has been handed over by the State to the 2nd defendant even in May 1963. The suit has been filed nearly 40 years thereafter. But, in view of the provisions of Section 109 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, the Limitation Act does not apply to the suit for possession of immovable property filed by a temple or a religious institution. Character of the plaintiff is not in dispute in the present suit. In view of the fact that the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, is a special enactment and Section 109 of the said Act excludes the applicability of the Limitation Act, viz., the Central Act 36 of 1963, the suit for recovery of possession of the property filed by a temple or a religious institution cannot be said to be bared by limitation. Therefore, this issue is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
Issue No.2:
9. This issue relates to non-joinder of necessary parties. Though originally a plea was taken that the suit properties are within the jurisdiction of the District Collector, Chengalpattu and they were included in Chennai District (Madras District) only in the year 1979. I do not think the said plea has been pressed ahead by the defendants. The defendants have produced the documents relating to acquisition, which has been initiated by the Government of Tamilnadu. Therefore, the District Collector of the Chennai, who has been impleaded in the suit is in fact the representative of Government of Tamilnadu and hence, I conclude that the suit is not bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.
Issue Nos.3, 4, 5 and 7:
10. All these four issues are taken up together, since determination of one will have an effect on the other. It is the plea of the 1st defendant as well as the 2nd defendant that these lands were subject matter of acquisition and the acquisition proceedings were initiated in the year 1962 and completed in the year 1963. Ex.D3 is the copy of the Fort St. George Gazette dated 21.03.1962, where in the declaration made under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act 1 of 1894 dated 13.03.1962 relating to the acquisition of lands for expansion of IIT, Madras has been published. The suit property has been shown as land belonging to the plaintiff in the said declaration. Ex.D.4 is a series of correspondence between the Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition IIT, Madras, with various authorities. By a letter dated 30.05.1963, addressed to the Sub Judge, Chengleput, the Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition has written to him, informing him about the references made by him to the said Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The said letter also discloses that the land owners in respect of items 1 to 14 with list have received the compensation under protest, the compensation amount in respect of the land owners mentioned in items 15 to 22 in the list have been deposited with the Civil Court under Section 30 or 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act. In the Annexure to the said letter the plaintiff's name figures as item No.21. The 2nd letter in Ex.D4 series is dated 30.03.1963, which is a proceeding of the Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Indian Institute of Technology-II, wherein the lands that were acquired for the purpose of expansion of IIT were handed over to the Technical Education Department and classified as Poramboke. Annexure I of the said letter contains the details of the lands covered by the Award No.1 to 6 of 63 dated 28.02.1963, 04.03.1963, 11.03.1963, 18.03.1963 and 28.03.1963. The suit property which is admittedly comprised in S.No.24/12, 24/13 and 25/1 are shown to be covered by Award No.4 of 1963 dated 14.03.1963 in the Annexure I of the said letter. By another letter dated 16.08.1963, the Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Indian Institute of Technology II, Madras, has handed over possession of these lands to the Directorate of Technical Education. The annexure to the said letter also indicates that the lands in S.No.24/12, 24/13 and 25/1 of Tiruvanmiyur Village were handed over to the Directorate of Technical Education as early as on 16.08.1963. Ex.D7 also forms part of Ex.D4 to which I have already referred to. These proceedings, which are nearly 40 years old have been produced from proper custody and they show that there was an acquisition initiated by the Government in the year 1962, which was completed by passing of awards in the year 1963 and the possession of the lands acquired have also been handed over to the Technical Education Department, for being transferred to IIT Madras in the year 1963. Therefore, the entire process of acquisition has been completed by August 1963 and the possession was handed over to the Department of Technical Education. All these are official acts, therefore the presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act, would apply.
11. Mr.A.K.Sriram, would however contend that these documents would only show that there was an acquisition proceeding, but these documents would not establish that the acquisition proceedings were regular and the plaintiff had notice of the acquisition. This plea of the learned counsel for the plaintiff would amount to a challenge to the acquisition proceedings in a Civil Suit. This Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court have repeatedly held that the land acquisition proceedings cannot be challenged in a Civil Suit. Section 16 of the Act attaches finality to the proceedings and once an award is passed, the land vests with the Government and the Government becomes the owner of the lands thereafter. Therefore, it is not open to the learned counsel for the plaintiff to challenge the validity of the land acquisition proceedings in the present suit. The plaint proceeds on the footing that there was no acquisition at all and therefore, the occupation of the land belonging to the plaintiff, by the defendants would amount to trespass and continuation of illegal possession. Once, it is shown that there were acquisition proceedings and enough documentary evidence is placed before the Court to show that the acquisition proceedings were completed in a manner known to law, I do not think, it is open to the learned counsel for the plaintiff to attack the validity of the acquisition proceedings, after lapse of nearly 40 years.
12. Mr.A.K.Sriram, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff, would however, submit that the award viz., Award No.4 of 1963 dated 18.03.1963, has not been produced. Therefore he would submit that I cannot presume an existence of an Award. I am unable to persuade myself to accept the contention of the learned counsel when plethora of documentary evidence is on record, which shows that an award has been passed and a reference has been made under Sections 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act to the Sub Court, the compensation amount has also been deposited in the Court. The act of handing over possession, and the act of re-classifying the lands, are all official acts performed in due discharge of the official duties of Land Acquisition Tahsildar and therefore, the presumption attached to official acts, as provided under Section 114 of the Evidence Act, would apply. An attempt was made by the learned counsel for the plaintiff to challenge the validity of the land acquisition proceedings. As already stated the validity or otherwise of the land acquisition proceedings cannot be challenged or questioned in a Civil Suit, that too in a suit for recovery of possession filed by the plaintiff contending that there was no acquisition proceedings. I therefore conclude that the suit lands were acquired by the Government under the acquisition proceedings initiated in 1962 and completed in 1963 with the passing of the award dated 18.03.1963. It is also seen that the possession has been taken under Section 16 of the Act and handed over to the Education Department. Once it is concluded that the lands in question have been acquired in a manner known to law, I do not think, it is open to the plaintiff to claim that the plaintiff was not served any notice of acquisition or the plaintiff was unaware of the acquisition proceedings, therefore the acquisition proceedings should be held to be bad.
13. In view of the said findings, the Issue Nos.3 and 7 are answered against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants. In view of the finding of the issues 3 and 7, Issue Nos.4 and 5 are also answered against the plaintiff to the effect that the plaintiff is not entitled to either compensation or recovery of possession.
Issue No.6:
14. This issue relates to territorial jurisdiction of this Court. It is an admitted fact that the lands in question are within the territorial jurisdiction of the Original Side of this Court as prescribed under the Madras High Court Jurisdictional Limits Act 4 of 1927 and Madras High Court Jurisdictional Limits Extension Act, 1985. Therefore, I conclude that this Court has got the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the Suit.
Issue No.8:
15. The 2nd defendant has not taken a plea that it is not a necessary party to the suit. Even the Section 80 notice was issued to the 2nd defendant and the 2nd defendant, being the person in possession, is a necessary party to the suit and the suit against the 1st defendant alone without the 2nd defendant being a party would suffer on the vice of non-joinder of necessary party. Therefore this issue is answered to the effect that the suit against the 2nd defendant is maintainable. In view of the above conclusions, the suit is dismissed.
16. On the question of costs: The suit could have been avoided, if only the 1st defendant had responded to the notice issued under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure Code, by the plaintiff in the year 2004. I am of the considered opinion that the Collector had invited the suit by not replying to the said notice. Hence, I am not inclined to award costs to the defendants.
16.11.2017 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Speaking / Non Speaking jv List of the Witnesses examined on the side of the Plaintiff:
P.W.1 N.Balasubramanian List of Exhibits marked on the side of the Plaintiff:
Sl.No.
Exhibits Description of documents Date 1 Ex.P1 Certified copy of the Land Register, Thiruvanmiyur Village.
Ex.P2 (Series) Office copy of the legal notices 11/12/2004 3 Ex.P3 (Series) Postal Acknowledgement Cards 4 Ex.P4 Reply notice 20/12/2004 List of the Witnesses examined on the side of the Defendants:
1 D.W.1 R.Pandiyan 2 D.W.2 K.Poomalini 3 D.W.3 K.Vijayalakshmi List of Exhibits marked on the side of the Defendants:
Sl.No.
Exhibits Description of documents Date 1 Ex.D1 Authorisation letter 10/11/2014 2 Ex.D2 Authorisation letter 23/10/2015 3 Ex.D3 Photo Copy of the Tamilnadu Gazettee 21/03/1962 4 Ex.D4 Attested copy of the Award copy 16/08/1963 5 Ex.D5 Attested copy of the Tamilnadu Gazettee Part-6, Section 2.
30/12/1987 6 Ex.D6 Authorisation letter 25/11/2016 7 Ex.D7 Attested copy of the Order 30/03/1963 16.11.2017 jv R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
jv To The Sub Assistant Registrar, Original Side, High Court, Madras.
C.S.No.553 of 2005 16.11.2017