This petition is focussed as against the order in Tr.O.P.No.54 of 2003 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Madurai, dated 16.07.2004.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. No doubt, earlier for want of taking steps to get notice served on the respondents 1, 2, 5, 6, 8 and 9, the Civil Revision Petition was dismissed and relating to others, the names were printed. The Additional Government Pleader for R.4 is present.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would convincingly submit that those respondents remained ex-parte before the Principal District Court in Tr.O.P.No.54 of 2003. Accordingly, he prays for dispensing with the notice to them.
4. I could see considerable force in the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and accordingly, notice to them is not necessary.
5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would narrate that while dismissing the said Tr.O.P, the learned District Judge exceeded his jurisdiction in pointing out that the suit which was sought to be transferred, was not maintainable and in such a case, the question of transfer would not arise.
6. The point for consideration is as to whether the order of the learned District Judge is sustainable in law in view of he having exceeded his jurisdiction while exercising his power under Section 24 of the Code of the Civil Procedure?
7. Perused the records.
8. The petitioner filed the suit so as to assert his right over the property acquired under the land acquisition Act and not by way of challenging the validity of the land acquisition itself. It is a trite proposition of law that the suit challenging the land acquired only is barred, by virtue of the catena of decisions of the Honourable Apex Court. But, on the other hand, the filing of a suit to assert the share or the right of a party relating to compensation assessed is not at all barred.
9. Be that as it may, it is for the Court concerned before which A.S is pending, to decide it on merits. The learned District Judge assumed as though the suit is not maintainable and hence, no transfer of the case was possible.
10. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that in view of the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act 28 of 1995, the suit in O.S.No.188 of 1996 pending on the file of the Sub Court, Madurai, was transferred to the District Munsif Court, Thirumangalam and renumbered as O.S.No.602 of 1996; inasmuch as that suit involves the issue relating to the correctness of the decision of the Sub Court in determining the right of the plaintiff over the property concerned, the District Munsif would have no jurisdiction to decide on that and accordingly, the transfer is sought for.
11. The long and short of the plea of the revision petitioner is that the order of the Sub Court in L.A.O.P, deciding the ownership over the property acquired, cannot be set aside by the District Munsif. I would like to highlight that such a view is not tenable. It is the Munsif Court, which has been conferred with enlarged jurisdiction, is going to set aside such decision of earlier Sub-court's in the event of finding it so on merits. Statutorily the Sub Court was conferred with the right to deal with L.A.O.P matters and after adhering to summary procedures, decisions are taken.
12. The aggrieved party in this case has chosen to file the suit asserting his right over the suit property and consequently, claiming right over the compensation amount assessed. As has been already highlighted supra, the suit is not for setting aside the land acquisition proceedings proceedings and in such a case, the District Munsif Court which has been conferred with enlarged pecuniary jurisdiction, cannot be treated as the one which is having no right to take a different decision from the Sub court in such matter, if it is otherwise within the Munsif Court's jurisdiction.
13. The Munsif Court was conferred with the enlarged jurisdiction and due to that alone, the said O.S.No.602 of 1996 was transferred from the Sub Court. In such a case, the question of the Munsif Court lacking in jurisdiction subject matter wise, would not arise at all. However, the learned District Judge was not right in holding that the suit itself is not maintainable and his consequent direction also as correctly highlighted by the revision petitioner would prejudice the mind of the trial Court.
14. Hence, I would like to expunge the finding of the District Judge as well as his direction to the trial Court. It is open for the parties to raise appropriate pleas and it is for the trial Court to decide it on merits. However, I am of the view that the transfer of the O.S.No.602 of 1996 on the ground suggested in the Tr.O.P.No.54 of 2003 was not maintainable.
15. With the above observation, this petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.
rsb To The Principal District Judge, Madurai.