Dismissed

M/S.Mahaveer Metal Industries, v. the Competent Authority

Madras HC19 Apr 2022WP/23788/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner alleged that lands acquired by the State were purchased using partnership firm funds, entitling the firm to compensation rather than an individual partner. The Court held that disputed questions of fact regarding fund sources and title cannot be adjudicated under Article 226, dismissing the petition and directing the petitioner to approach the civil court.

What did the court decide?

Nothing worthier than to direct the Department to deposit the amount of Rs.1,45,98,353/- in the Civil Court for adjudication of rights of parties.

M/S.Mahaveer Metal Industries, Vs the Competent Authority — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

____________ W.P. No.23788/2004

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Reserved on Pronounced on 29.03.2022 19.04.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

W.P. NO.23788 OF 2004 AND W.P.M.P. NO. 1702 OF 2008

¶7

M/s.Mahaveer Metal Industries Rep. by its Partner, Mr.Champalal No.182, Mint Street Chennai 600 003. .. Petitioner

¶8

Vs -

¶9

The Competent Authority Special District Revenue Officer (LA) National Highways Kancheepuram & Thiruvallur Districts @ Kancheepuram.

¶10

Mr. Shanthilal

¶11

Canara Bank Karanodai Branch Karanodai, Chennai. .. Respondents

¶12

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying this Court to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records from the file of the 1^st respondent in RC7/2001A/NH-5/TVR dated 29.03.04 in respect of the lands situated in Madhavaram Village bearing Survey No.1280/1B and Survey No.1318/1B and quash the impugned order in RC7/2001A/NH-5/TVR dated 29.03.04 and consequently directing the 1^st respondent to deposit the total compensation amount of Rs.1,45,98,353/into a Civil Court for adjudication of the rights of the petitioner.

¶13

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

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr. T.R.Rajagopalan, SC, for M/s. C.V.Vijayakumar

¶15

For Respondents: Mr.A.Anandan, GA for R-1 Mr. T.V.Ramanujun, SC, for M/s. T.V.Krishnamachari for R-2 Mr. N.Nithianandam for R-3

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The writ petition, at the instance of the petitioner, is filed assailing the order in and by which the compensation for the lands acquired by the 1 st respondent were paid to the 2 nd respondent, though it is alleged that the lands were purchased out of the funds of the partnership firm of which the 2 nd respondent was a partner on the date of purchase.

¶18

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the 2 nd respondent was one of the partners in the petitioner’s firm, which is a partnership firm. It is the further averment of the petitioner that on 25.10.1966, the property, which has since been acquired, was purchased from the funds of the partnership firm in the name of one of the partners, viz., the 2 nd respondent herein. It is the further averment of the petitioner that patta was granted in the name of the 2 nd respondent and that the original patta as also the original sale deed in and by which the property was purchased, are in the custody of the petitioner. It is the further averment of the petitioner that the 2 nd respondent, on 4.5.1989, executed a release deed retiring as partner from the partnership firm.

¶19

3. It is further averred by the petitioner the 1 st respondent had caused public notice on 3.12.2002 for the purpose of acquisition of lands for the purpose of National Highways. Vide communication dated 17.2.03, the petitioner firm had addressed the 1 st respondent not to entertain any claim from the 2nd respondent and the petitioner firm preferred claim for compensation as owner of the land from the 1 st respondent. It is the further averment of the petitioner that a sum of Rs.37,43,167/- was issued to the 2 nd respondent by way of cheque by antedating the receipt of the petitioner’s claim as 19.2.03.

¶20

4. It is the further averment of the petitioner that the 1 st respondent acknowledged the receipt of the communication of the petitioner dated 17.2.03, but in view of the payment of compensation to the 2 nd respondent, the petitioner preferred W.P. No.6438/03 seeking a restraint order from payment of compensation in which this Court had restrained the 1 st respondent from making compensation to the 2 nd respondent, vide order dated 27.2.03. However, inspite of the said order, the 1 st

¶21

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

¶22

respondent, vide cheque dated 27.2.03, issued a cheque for a sum of Rs.1,08,55,186/- in favour of the 2 nd respondent. However, the 3 rd respondent permitted the 2 nd respondent to encash both the cheques for a total sum of Rs.1,46,02,353/ on 3.3.03.

¶23

5. It is the further averment of the petitioner that order was passed in the writ petition, W.P. No.6438/03 directing the 1st respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass orders, which resulted in a series of litigations between the petitioner, the 1 st and 3 rd respondents upto the stage of contempt appeal and finally the contempt petition was closed, with which this Court is not concerned.

¶24

6. It is the further averment of the petitioner that the funds with which the property was purchased belonged to the partnership firm and, therefore, the property would legally be the property of the petitioner and the 2 nd respondent cannot claim any right over the said property even if it had been purchased in his individual name. In the light of the aforestated facts, the present petition has been filed along with a miscellaneous petition for a direction to the 1 st respondent to deposit the total compensation amount of Rs.1,45,98,353/- into Court deposit for adjudication of the rights of the parties to the said amount.

¶25

7. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, mainly contended that the 2 nd respondent is a permanent resident of Mumbai and had produced a copy of the sale deed dated 25.10.66 averring that he had lost the original sale deed at a Tea Shop at Ponneri on 23.2.2003 and had sought for issuance of a certified copy of the sale deed. However, part of the compensation to the tune of Rs.37,43,167/- had been paid by the 1st respondent to the 2 nd respondent vide cheque dated 17.2.03. It is the submission of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that without even verifying the title of the 2 nd respondent to the property, which is sought to be acquired, part compensation has been paid to the 2 nd respondent.

¶26

8. It is the further submission of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the complaint has been given by the 2 nd respondent before the Sub Inspector, Ponneri, with regard to the loss of the original sale deed and on the very same day, Non-Traceable Certificate has been issued to the 2 nd respondent and based on the said certificate, certified copy of the sale deed has also been issued by the Sub Registrar on the same day and the 2 nd cheque has been issued to the 2 nd respondent on 27.2.2003 within a period of four days on the basis of the legal opinion obtained from the Government Pleader dated 27.2.2003. It is therefore the submission of the learned senior counsel that the whole sequence of events right from the lodgement of

¶27

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

¶28

the complaint to the issuance of the cheque, which had taken place within a period of four days creates a grave doubt and in that scenario, the prudent approach for the 1 st respondent would have been to have followed the restraint order passed by this Court in W.P. No.6438/03. But without following the said order, the 1 st respondent has gone ahead and released the whole compensation amount, which clearly shows that there has been a nexus between the various stakeholders with regard to the said transaction.

¶29

9. It is the further submission of the learned senior counsel that the property having been purchased from the funds belonging to the petitioner, as held by the Courts in a catena of decisions, the property would belong to the petitioner and it cannot be claimed as the individual property of the 2 nd respondent, even if it is registered in the individual name of the 2 nd respondent. When the petitioner has raised a contention questioning the title of the 2 nd respondent to the property, the 1st respondent ought to have relegated both the petitioner and the 2 nd respondent to agitate their rights with regard to title before the civil court and, thereafter, to have released the compensation amount on the basis of the said judicial adjudication. However, without following the prudent procedure, the 1 st respondent had released the entire compensation amount in favour of the 2 nd respondent, which not only smacks of mala fides, but the entire exercise as sketched above, clearly reveals that all it not well and, therefore, necessitates interference at the hands of this Court.

¶30

10. Per contra, learned senior counsel appearing for the 2 nd respondent submitted that no iota of evidence has been filed by the petitioner to show that the fund of the partnership firm was used in the purchase of the property. It is the submission of the learned senior counsel that the subject property was purchased in the year 1966, but the partnership firm was established only in the year 1973 and, re-established in the year 1979 as per the documents. It is the further submission of the learned senior counsel for the 2 nd respondent that no document evidencing the establishment of the firm during the period when the property is alleged to have been purchased.

¶31

11. It is the further submission of the learned senior counsel that the acquisition proceedings were notified in September, 2001, but no objection has been submitted with the time prescribed u/s 3-C of the National Highways Act. It is also the further submission of the learned senior counsel that the title document, the patta and the encumbrance certificate all stand in the name of the 2 nd respondent and there is not even a single document, which avers the property to be in favour of the petitioner. Further, the recitals in the sale deed does not

¶32

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

¶33

speak about the subject property being purchased from the funds of the petitioner and the release deed in this regard is also silent on this aspect. That being the factum, the documents, placed before the 1 st respondent with regard to the title of the property have been appreciated in proper perspective and the 1 st respondent has paid the compensation in favour of the 2 nd respondent, which does not require any interference.

¶34

12. This Court paid its undivided attention to the submissions advanced by the learned senior counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

¶35

13. It is trite that under the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court, disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated. However, where the facts are undisputed, this Court is clothed with powers to adjudicate the said dispute. With the above proposition in mind, this Court will analyze the materials placed before it to arrive at a solution.

¶36

14. The whole crux of the case of the petitioner falls within a narrow compass, in that the petitioner claims that the subject property, which has since been acquired, were purchased in the name of the 2 nd respondent by utilising the funds of the petitioner firm and, therefore, according to the petitioner, the compensation should come to the coffers of the petitioner firm.

¶37

15. It is the case of the petitioner that the firm was established in the year 1959 and in the year 1963 the 2 nd respondent was inducted as one of the partners of the firm. According to the petitioner, the firm is a registered partnership firm. However, it is disputed by the 2 nd respondent stating that the firm was started only in the year 1973. Therefore, the genesis of the formation of the firm itself is shrouded under dispute and any property purchased prior to the formation of the firm would be the individual property of the 2 nd respondent. In this regard, the 2 nd respondent places much emphasis on the non-placement of the partnership deed in the typed set of documents. However, it is to be pointed out that it is not as if no material has been placed to show the existence of the firm during the period in question, viz., 1966. The alleged ledger book signed by the auditor has been filed in the typed set of documents. However, it is to be pointed out that though such a material is filed, the authenticity of the same cannot be adjudicated by this Court, as there is a dispute with regard to the existence of the firm during the period in question. The said documents have to be put to test before it is to be accepted and relied upon in evidence.

¶38

16. Be that as it may. The 1 st respondent has paid the compensation to the 2 nd respondent on the basis of the certified

¶39

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

¶40

copy of the sale deed, which has been issued by the Sub Registrar and also on the basis of the patta and the revenue records, which bears the name of the 2 nd respondent as the owner of the property. It is not in dispute that the 2 nd respondent is shown to be the purchaser of the subject property. As stated above, the only question relates to the source of funds for the purchase of the property. Both the parties to the lis claims that the source is from their own. This again is a disputed question as there is a dispute with regard to the source of funds, which can be adjudicated only before the competent civil court by submitting oral and documentary evidence and authenticating the same. It would not be right on the part of this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to enter into the said domain and adjudicate the source of funds.

¶41

17. In the aforesaid scenario, the issue that befalls for consideration before this Court is the act of the 1 st respondent in releasing the compensation amount in favour of the 2 nd respondent. True it is that multiplicity of proceedings have been taken up by the parties, upto the level of contempt, which was ultimately rejected by this Court stating that no case arises for having committed contempt. The 1 st respondent has paid the compensation to the 2 nd respondent on the strength of the certified copy of the sale deed, the encumbrance certificate and the patta. It is not disputed even by the petitioner that the sale deed and the patta stands in the name of the petitioner. Further, the revenue records also shows the name of the petitioner as the owner of the property.

¶42

18. It is to be pointed out that the 1 st respondent has to adjudicate and satisfy himself as to the person holding title to the property and also the patta to the property and the name as reflected in the revenue records with regard to the person holding title to the property before releasing the compensation for the lands acquired. As stated above, it is not in dispute that the revenue records relating to the property, which is the subject matter of issue, contain the name of the 2 nd respondent as the title holder of the property and the patta also stands in the name of the 2 nd respondent and the encumbrance certificate also ends with the 2 nd respondent. Satisfying that the 2 nd respondent, as on the date of payment of compensation, is the owner of the property, the 1 st respondent has paid the compensation amount to the 2 nd respondent. True it is that the petitioner has made an objection to the 1 st respondent about the rival claim made with regard to the disputed property. However, the petitioner has placed only the original documents, viz., the sale deed and patta before the 1 st respondent claiming compensation. But the said documents, as stated above, evidences the name of the 2 nd respondent as the owner of the property. In such a scenario, prudence warranted the release

¶43

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

¶44

of the compensation in favour of the 2 nd respondent, which the 1 st respondent has done and rightly so.

¶45

19. It is to be stated that the procedure followed by the 1st respondent cannot be faulted with. After ascertaining the ownership of the property with the relevant records, the 1 st respondent has released the amounts in favour of the 2 nd respondent. The 1 st respondent is not clothed with any power to adjudicate the source of funds for the purchase of the property, as the said authority is not vested with the judicial power, so vast, for adjudicating the validity of the purchase made by the 2nd respondent and the source of funds for obtaining the property. Only the competent civil court is clothed with jurisdiction to decide on the validity of the purchase in the name of the 2 nd respondent.

¶46

20. The whole fabric of the petitioner’s case is made to rest on the act of the 2 nd respondent in obtaining a NonTraceable Certificate with regard to the loss of the original sale deed from the law enforcing agency on the very same day of submission of the complaint. Not only was a Non-Traceable Certificate issued on the very same day of the complaint, on the basis of the said certificate, the 2 nd respondent has also obtained the certified copy of the sale deed, which was produced before the 1 st respondent for claiming the balance compensation. The above act of the 2 nd respondent in obtaining the NonTraceable Certificate and the certified copy of the sale deed on the very same date, leaves a sour taste in the mouth of this Court, but that act alone would not be sufficient to hold that the 2 nd respondent is not the lawful owner of the property. Though the petitioner claims that all along it was in possession of the sale deed and that the claim of the 2 nd respondent as to loss of the said original sale deed at a tea stall, is a fabrication made only for the purpose of obtaining the certificate and the certified copy of the sale deed for claiming the compensation, however, this Court, sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution is not inclined to appreciate the said contention, as it could only be decided by submitting necessary oral and documentary evidence. The act of the 1 st respondent in releasing the compensation on the basis of the above documents cannot be said to be legally unjustified.

¶47

21. It is to be pointed out that the 1 st respondent had issued the notification u/s 3-A of the National Highways Act for acquisition of the property and after following the other provisions of law with regard to hearing of objections u/s 3-C, the 1 st respondent has followed Section 3-E and 3-G of the Act insofar as taking possession of the lands and payment of compensation while scrupulously following Section 3-H (3) of the Act. The act of the 1 st respondent in adhering to the

¶48

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

¶49

provisions of law in the matter of acquisition and payment of compensation does not in any manner traverse on the path of illegality. Merely because there is a dispute between the petitioner and the 2 nd respondent with regard to the subject property, in which the petitioner claims that purchase of the same came from the funds of the firm, that would not be a ground for the 1 st respondent to withhold the compensation to the 2 nd respondent, more so, when the contempt petition alleging disobedience of the interim orders relating to payment of compensation has ended in rejection of the contempt petition. That being the case, the compensation awarded by the 1 st respondent to the 2 nd respondent cannot be put in issue before this Court seeking the relief as sought for in the present petition.

¶50

22. If really the petitioner is aggrieved by the payment of compensation to the 2 nd respondent, the course open to the petitioner is only to agitate its right before the competent civil forum by putting the issues raised herein to test before the civil court. It is not justifiable on the part of the petitioner to seek the indulgence of this Court to adjudicate disputed questions of fact and it also would not be right on the part of this Court to enter into the realm of disputed questions, when the questions raised herein are all disputed. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief much less the relief of a direction to the 1 st respondent to deposit the amount of Rs.1,45,98,353/- in a civil court of competent jurisdiction.

¶51

23. For the reasons aforesaid, the questions being raised are disputed in nature, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition and, accordingly, the same is dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to go before the appropriate civil court to agitate its rights with regard to the subject property in a manner known to law. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶52

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-II)

¶53

//True copy//

¶54

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶55

GLN

¶56

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

¶57

¶58

The Competent Authority Special District Revenue Officer (LA) National Highways Kancheepuram & Thiruvallur Districts @ Kancheepuram. +1cc to Mr.N.Nithianandam, Advocate SR.No.26892 +1cc to Mr.T.R.Rajaraman, Advocate SR.No.26854 +1cc to Mr.T.V.Krishnamachari, Advocate SR.No.26830 +1cc to Government Pleader SR.No.27159 W.P. NO.23788 OF 2004 PL(CO) GMY(28/04/2022)

¶59

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

M/S.Mahaveer Metal Industries, v. the Competent Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Mahaveer Metal Industries, v. the Competent Authority

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

K.R.Simon Vs The Tahsildar

Balan Vs The Inspector of Police

Maruthu Pandi Vs The Deputy Superintendent of Police

Ganapathy Vs The Inspector of Police

A. Nagarajan Vs The Deputy Superintendent of Police

V.Tamil Selvan Vs Inspector General of Registration