Dismissed

C.Perumal v. Land Acquisition Officer and

Madras HC12 Dec 2023AS/126/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected an appeal filed by two claimants challenging the dismissal of their claim to a share in compensation for acquired land. The court held that a prior release deed by the appellants' father had vested the rights in his brother, precluding the appellants from asserting a share derived from their grandfather. The trial court's dismissal was confirmed.

What did the court decide?

The appeal suit is dismissed; the judgment and decree in LAOP.No.3 of 1999 dated 03.09.2002 are confirmed.

C.Perumal Vs Land Acquisition Officer and — Specific Performance | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

AS.No.126 of 2004

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated : 12.12.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

AS.No.126 of 2004

1.C.Perumal

2.C.Vellaiammal

... Appellants

Vs.

1.Land Acquisition Officer and Special Tahsildar (L.A) Mettur Thermal Station Project, Mettur Dam.

¶12

Chellappa Gounder

¶13

Palaniammal

¶14

Chellappan

¶15

Krishnan

¶16

Sundarambal

¶17

Chinna Irusa Gounder

¶18

Kolandai Gounder

¶19

1/7

¶20

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶21

AS.No.126 of 2004

¶22

Vellaiah Gounder

¶23

Chinna Thambi Gounder @ Manoharan

¶24

Irusammal

¶25

Mathaian

¶26

Mariammal

¶27

Chandran

¶28

Manga

¶29

Secretary, K.K.238, P.N.Patty, Veerakkalpudur Agricultural Society, Mettur.04. ...Respondents

¶30

PRAYER:

¶31

Appeal Suit is filed under Section 96 of CPC against the judgment and decree dated 03.09.2002 passed in LAOP.No.3 of 1999 on the file of the Sub Judge, Mettur.

¶32

For Appellants : Mr.P.Mani

¶33

For Respondent 1 : Mr.T.Chandrasekaran Special Government Pleader For Respondent 4 to 10 : Mr.S.Doraisamy

¶34

2/7

¶35

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶36

AS.No.126 of 2004

¶37

JUDGMENT

¶38

The Appeal suit is filed against the judgment and decree dated 03.09.2002 passed in LAOP.No.03/1999 on the file of the Sub-Judge, Mettur.

¶39

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per

¶40

their ranking in the trial Court.

¶41

The appellants are the claimants and the 1st respondent is the

¶42

Land Acquisition Officer and the other respondents are also the claimants. The property comprised in S.No.436/1 admeasuring 4.84 acres situated in P.N.Patty Village, Mettur Taluk, Salem District was acquired along with other lands for Mettur Thermal Power Station Project. The compensation in respect of the said property was determined at Rs.1,80,169.70/-. A reference was made under section 30 and 31 (2) of Land Acquisition Act, if there be any dispute as to the title to receive the compensation or as to the apportionment of it, the collector shall deposit the amount of the compensation in the court. Provided that any person

¶43

3/7

¶44

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶45

AS.No.126 of 2004

¶46

admitted to be interested may receive such payment under protest as to the sufficiency of the amount. Accordingly, the claimants filed claim petition before the trial court. According to the Appellants herein, they are entitled to have 2/3rd share in the said property and as such they should be paid compensation proportionally to their share. The respondents 2 to 6 herein are claiming that they are entitled to have 1/3rd share in the said property. The respondents 7 to 10 also claim 2/3rd share in the property which was acquired by the first respondent. However, the claim of the appellants was rejected by the trial Court.

¶47

The learned counsel for the Appellant would submit that their grant father had share in the property. However, the trial court concluded that the respondents 7 to 10 would succeed to the undivided share of appellant's grandfather on the basis of release deed executed by their father. Their father had no rights in the share of their grant father to release or relinquish his right over the subject property.

¶48

4/7

¶49

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶50

AS.No.126 of 2004

¶51

Heard, the learned counsel appearing on either side.

¶52

On perusal of the records revealed that though the appellants specifically contended that though their father had no right over the property which was owned by their grant father, their father had executed release deed. Insofar as their share is concerned, admittedly the appellants did not challenge the same and only after acquisition, they are claiming right over the property through their grandfather. Their father had executed release deed in respect of all the properties. Insofar as their share is concerned executed in favour of his father by the release deed dated 23.05.1957, after release deed, their father got married and gave birth to the appellants. In respect of other 1/3rd share of their father is concerned, he sold out the same in favour of his brother Ramasamy even before his marriage. Therefore they have no share in respect of the property which was acquired by the first respondent. Hence, the trial court had rightly dismissed their claim.

¶53

5/7

¶54

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶55

AS.No.126 of 2004

¶56

As such, this court finds no infirmity or illegality in the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court. Accordingly, this appeal suit is dismissed and the Judgement and Decree passed in LAOP.No.3 of 1999 on the file of the Sub Judge, Mettur dated 03.09.2002 is confirmed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶57

12.12.2023

¶58

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Speaking order /Non-speaking order gvn

¶59

¶60

The Sub Judge, Mettur.

¶61

6/7

¶62

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶63

AS.No.126 of 2004

¶64

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J

gvn

AS.No.126 of 2004

12.12.2023

7/7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.Perumal v. Land Acquisition Officer and

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Perumal v. Land Acquisition Officer and

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

Sapbapathy Mudaliar Vs . . B. Shanmugasundaram (Died

R.Gokilam (Died) Vs S.Veerajothi Murugan

R.K.Chinnusamy(Deceased) Vs N.K.Periyasamy

R.S.Ranganathan Vs R.Rangarajan

Maersk Line Rep by Their Agent Vs Priya Dye & Chemicals

Thulasi Gounder, Vs Kanagarani