Dismissed

T.P.L.S Mohamed Ibrahim, (Died) v. the Special Tahsildar

Madras HC7 Apr 2021AS(MD)/195/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court disposed of an appeal suit filed to set aside a land acquisition award based on compensation apportionment disputes. The appeal was dismissed as the impugned award was based solely on the deceased appellant's own admission, leaving no scope for interference.

What did the court decide?

No interference; the impugned award is confirmed, the appeal suit is dismissed, and no costs are awarded.

T.P.L.S Mohamed Ibrahim, (Died) Vs the Special Tahsildar — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

A.S.(MD)No.195 of 2015

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Date :07.04.2021

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶5

A.S(MD).No.195 of 2015

¶6

1.T.P.L.S.Mohamed Ibrahim (Died)

¶7

2.S.Kather Maitheen Sate

¶8

(A2 is brought on record as legal heir of the deceased A1 vide Court order

¶9

dated 19.02.2021 made in CMP(MD)No.86/21 )

¶10

..Appellant/2^nd Claimant Vs.

¶11

1.The Special Tahsildar Office of Land Acquisition Karur-Dindigul Broad Gauge Unit-2, Dindigul. ..1^st Respondent/Petitioner 2.P.Nalluswami ..2^nd Respondent/1^st Claimant

¶12

PRAYER: Appeal Suit filed under Section 54 & 30 of Land Acquisition Act r/w 96 of Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the Award in L.A.O.P.No.4 of 1988, dated 22.06.2015 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Dindigul and allow the appeal.

¶13

For Appellant : Mr.M.V.Venkataseshan For R1 : Mr.J.Gunaseelan Muthiah Additional Government Pleader For R2 : Mr.G.Gomathi Sankar

¶14

J U D G M E N T

¶15

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

¶16

2.This appeal has been filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The land measuring 53 cents in Survey No.624/2 in Vedasandur Village was acquired for expansion of railway lines and compensation amount was also deposited. But there arose dispute regarding apportionment of the compensation. Hence, reference was made to the Principal Sub Court, Dindigul. The reference was taken up for determination in L.A.O.P.No.4 of 1988. The original appellant namely T.P.L.S.Mohamed Ibrahim examined himself as witness. The rival claimant Nalluswami also examined himself as witness. During the course of deposition, Mohamed Ibrahim fairly stated that out of 53 cents, he is entitled to compensation only in respect of 18 cents and he admits that Nalluswami and the other claimant is entitled to compensation for the remaining 35 cents. The impugned award dated 22.06.2015 came to be passed by the reference Court based on the aforesaid admission of Mohamed Ibrahim. During the pendency of the appeal, Mohamed Ibrahim https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶17

1/4

¶18

A.S.(MD)No.195 of 2015

¶19

passed away and his legal representative namely Kathir Maitheen Sate was brought on record.

¶20

3.After hearing the learned counsel on either side, I am able to note that the impugned award is based only on the admission of the original appellant and therefore, no interference is called for. The impugned award is confirmed and the appeal suit is dismissed. No costs.

¶21

Sd/-

¶22

Assistant Registrar (CS-I)

¶23

// True Copy //

¶24

/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶25

¶26

1.The Principal Subordinate Court, Dindigul.

¶27

2.The Record Keeper, V.R.Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶28

+1 CC to M/s.M.V.VENKATASESHAN, Advocate ( SR-15405[F] dated 07/04/2021 )

¶29

+1 CC to M/s.G.GOMATHI SANKAR, Advocate ( SR-15414[F] dated 07/04/2021 )

¶30

+1 CC to M/s.SPL GP ( SR-15499[F] dated 08/04/2021 )

¶31

A.S(MD).No.195 of 2015 07.04.2021 KB(29.04.2021) 2P 7C

¶32

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶33

2/4

T.P.L.S Mohamed Ibrahim, (Died) v. the Special Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.P.L.S Mohamed Ibrahim, (Died) v. the Special Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Y. Jeyasingh Vs Asha Ajith, IAS

Sri Shanmugavel Mills Pvt. Ltd., Vs The Assistant Commissioner (St)

M/S.Adisankara Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State Tax Officer

Sankaran, Vs Chelladurai

Mahaboolisha Begam, Vs the Special Tahsildar

Periasami Vs Krishnan