(This case has been heard through Video Conferencing) This appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 06.09.2017 made in L.A.O.P No.567 of 2013, by the Special Sub Judge for LAOP Cases, Cuddalore.
2. A reference has been filed by the 3rd respondent/Special Tahsildar (L.A) No.III, Neyveli, under Section 10(3) of the Tamilnadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 (Act 10/1999) in LAOP No.567 of 2013, to decide the apportionment of compensation amount with regard to the land acquired for the expansion of Mines of Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited, Neyveli in Award No.31 of 2009 dated 25.11.2009. The appellant is the 1st claimant and the 2nd respondent is the 3rd claimant in the said LAOP.
2/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis AS.No.693 of 2017
3. After perusing the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Sub Judge for LAOP Cases, Cuddalore, held that only the 2nd respondent/3rd claimant is entitled to receive the compensation amount as per the norms passed by the Referring Officer in Award No.31/2009, dated 25.11.2009 and the other claimants have no title over the acquired lands. Challenging the above judgement and decree, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant / 1st claimant.
4. The case of the appellant/1st claimant is that the property under reference is originally belonged to his father Ramanujam and he had executed a settlement deed in his favour with regard to the acquired lands absolutely and from the date of settlement, he has been in possession and enjoyment of the said properties by paying kist due to the Government. In the meanwhile, on 24.03.2004, the appellant/1st claimant had mortgaged item 2 to 4 of the subject properties to one Veeramuthu Padayachi and borrowed a sum of Rs.65,000/-. Thereafter, in the year 2006, NLC was planning to acquire the properties for the purpose of mining expansion. The 2nd respondent's husband, who is the 2nd claimant had advised the appellant/1st claimant that if he executes a general power of attorney, he 3/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis AS.No.693 of 2017 will increase the value of the properties and when NLC acquires the properties, the 1st claimant would get substantial amount as compensation. Believing the words of the 2nd claimant, the appellant, viz., Manivannan had executed a power of attorney on 03.10.2006 in respect of the subject matter of the properties in favour of his relative Bagiyalakshmi and also handed over the settlement deed dated 19.03.2004. Thereafter, on 21.01.2008, the appellant discharged the mortgage deed dated 24.03.2004 and requested the mortgagee to hand over the mortgage deed. Thereafter, he came to know that the mortgagee Veeramuthu and the 2nd claimant colluded with each other and after obtaining the mortgage deed from the said Veeramuthu, on the strength of the said power of attorney, the 2nd respondent/3rd claimant had executed a sale deed dated 06.10.2006 in favour of her husband, viz., Vetrivel / 2nd claimant. Challenging the said sale deed dated 06.10.2006, the appellant/1st claimant had filed a suit in O.S.No.149 of 2009 before the Principal Subordinate Judge, Vridhachalam for declaration of his title with regard to the subject properties and permanent injunction restraining the 2nd claimant and his wife Bagiyalakshmi not to get compensation and damages amount with regard to the property under reference. In the meanwhile, an award was passed by the trial Court in favour of the 2nd respondent. 4/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis AS.No.693 of 2017 Challenging the said award, the appellant is before this Court.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent and also perused the entire materials on record.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that for want of valid consideration, the sale deed is void and not enforceable in law, because the power of attorney has been executed only for the purpose of getting higher compensation and the sale deed has been executed within three days from the date of execution of the power of attorney dated 03.10.2006. Therefore, the findings of the Special Judge for LAOP Cases, that the deceased 2nd claimant perfected title over the acquired lands and after his death, his wife, viz., the 2nd respondent/3rd claimant is entitled to his share is erroneous in law. Further, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial Court has completely ignored the pendency of the civil suit in O.S No.149 of 2009 on the file of the Sub Court, Vridhachalam and the trial Court, without waiting till the final disposal of the suit, had erroneously passed an award in favour of the 2nd respondent and therefore, 5/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis AS.No.693 of 2017 the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court need to be interfered with by this Court and hence, he prays to allow this appeal.
7. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent would submit that the 2nd respondent/3rd claimant is the wife of the deceased 2nd claimant Vetrivel and that with regard to the acquired lands, the appellant/1st claimant has executed a general power of attorney in favour of the 3rd claimant and as the power agent of 1st claimant, the 3rd claimant had executed a sale deed in favour of her husband by passing sale consideration and they are in possession of the properties till the date of acquisition under patta and hence, the award passed by the trial Court is in accordance with law.
8. The point for consideration is, whether the impugned judgement and decree of the lower court is sustainable or not?
9. On a perusal of records, it is seen that the learned Special Judge 6/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis AS.No.693 of 2017 for LAOP Cases, Cuddalore has completely ignored the pendency of the civil suit in O.S No.149 of 2009 on the file of the Sub Court, Vridhachalam and the trial Court, without waiting till the final disposal of the suit, had erroneously passed an award in favour of the 2nd respondent. Further, it is seen that the learned Special Sub Judge for LAOP Cases, observed that the 3rd claimant has not produced any receipt for payment of sale consideration. Even in the judgment in O.S No.149 of 2009, the learned Sub Judge, Vridhachalam has also observed as follows:
"There is no valid consideration passed and to prove the said contention, no oral evidence has been putforth by the defendants and further, the plaintiff has not received any amount from the defendants 1 and 2 as alleged in the written statement that the amount of Rs.2,75,000/- paid by the defendants 1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiff. No documentary evidence filed to prove the contention of the defendant.
Therefore, the 06.10.2006 Ex.B7 sale deed is not legally enforceable document. .................The Power of Attorney executed but according to the covenants, the 1st defendant, 7/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis AS.No.693 of 2017 failed to comply with the conditions. Therefore, the sale deed executed on the power of attorney is void and it cannot be looked into. .......... Therefore, the sale is void. It is clearly declare that the plaintiff is the only lawful owner of the property and the sale deed dated 06.10.2006 is void and therefore, the 3rd defendant NLC has acquired the suit schedule mentioned property. Therefore, the plaintiff is only person to entitled for the compensation from the said 3rd defendant NLC authority and to withdraw the amount".
10. In view of the above, this Court finds that the learned Special Judge for LAOP Cases, Cuddalore, without properly analysing the oral and documentary evidence adduced by both sides, has committed an error in passing the award in favour of the 2nd respondent / 3rd claimant and hence, it requires interference by this Court.
8/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis AS.No.693 of 2017
11. In fine, this Appeal Suit stands allowed. No costs.
31.01.2022 Index:Yes/No Web:Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking uma To
1. The Special Sub Court for Land Acquisition Cases, Cuddalore.
2. The Record Keeper, VR Section, Madras High Court.
9/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis AS.No.693 of 2017 A.A.NAKKIRAN, J.
uma Pre-Delivery Judgment made in A.S.No.693 of 2017 31.01.2022 10/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis