Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1158 (MAD)

Jeer Mutt v. J. Mohamed Ibrahim & Others

2007-04-01

S.NAGAMUTHU

body2007
Judgment :- Though the Miscellaneous Petition is listed today, by consent of both the counsel, the civil revision petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order-dated 211. 2005 made in I.A.No.804 of 2005 in O.S.No.66 of 2004 on the file of the learned Additional District Munsif, Nanguneri. 3. Brief facts of the case are as follows:- The respondents herein are the plaintiffs and the petitioner herein is the second defendant in O.S.No.66 of 2004 on the file of the learned Additional District Munsif, Nanguneri. The suit was filed for recovery of money and for costs and other related relief’s. According to the respondents/plaintiffs, Government has acquired lands in Puliyurkurichi Village, Nangunery Taluk for public purpose, which were in the joint names of the father of the plaintiffs and the second defendant as per the revenue records by initiating proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act. It appears that after following the procedure contemplated under the relevant provisions, the Special Tahsildar (L.A), Hi-tech Industrial Park, Unit No.1, Nanguneri, by his proceedings in A.52 & 53/97 dated 011. 1998, has passed two awards, fixing the compensation, as well as apportionment on the basis of the claim made in respect of the properties said to be jointly owned by the father of the plaintiffs and the second defendant. 4. It is further stated in the plaint that the Power Agent of the second defendant has received the entire award amount of compensation on 31.08.1998 without the knowledge of the plaintiffs. It is the further case of the plaintiffs/respondents that since they have right over the amount received by the second defendant through his power agent by way of compensation, they have filed the above suit for recovery of the amount allegedly due to them. .5. The petitioner/second defendant has entered appearance before the lower Court and he has filed I.A.No.804 of 2005 under Order 14 Rule 2 and Section 151 C.P.C., requesting the Court to frame a preliminary issue “Whether the suit is maintainable or not before the Civil Court, in view of the bar contained in Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act". After hearing both sides on the said question of maintainability, the learned Additional District Munsif has dismissed the said I.A by an order dated 211. After hearing both sides on the said question of maintainability, the learned Additional District Munsif has dismissed the said I.A by an order dated 211. 2005, holding that the question of jurisdiction of the Civil Court can be decided only during trial of the case and it will be pre-mature to decide the said issue at that stage. It is the said order, which is under challenge in this civil revision petition. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondents. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is a clear bar for the Civil Court to entertain a suit with reference to the apportionment of the award amount among the rival parties. He would submit that in the event of the award remaining silent about the apportionment, then only such Civil suit can be maintained. He would further contend that in the case on hand, since apportionment has been clearly done in the award, Civil Court jurisdiction is ousted in view of Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs would submit that even in case where apportionment has been done in the award, still Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the Civil suit, since there is no express bar anywhere in the said Act, ousting the jurisdiction of the Civil Court and he would rely on the Judgment reported in AIR 1992 Gauhati High Court (Asher Ali Vs. Sukhna Seikh and others), in support of his contention. .9. I have considered the rival contentions raised by the learned counsel for both sides. Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is as follows:- .“30. Dispute as to apportionment:- When the amount of compensation has been settled under section 11, if any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the same or any part thereof, or as to the persons to whom the same or any part thereof is payable, the Collector may refer such dispute to the decision of the Court.” .10. A close reading of Section 30 of the said Act would show that if there is any dispute regarding the apportionment, the Collector may refer such dispute, to the decision of the Court. In the case on hand, there is no such reference made by the District Collector. A close reading of Section 30 of the said Act would show that if there is any dispute regarding the apportionment, the Collector may refer such dispute, to the decision of the Court. In the case on hand, there is no such reference made by the District Collector. Secondly, Section 30 of the Act does not state that the jurisdiction under Civil Court is ousted. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Section 30 of the Act is a bar for the Civil Court to entertain the suit cannot be accepted. Same is the view of the Gauhati High Court reported in AIR 1992 Gauhati High Court (Asher Ali Vs. Sukhna Seikh and others), wherein in paragraph No.9 of the Judgment the Court has held as follows:- .“A perusal of S.30 of the Act also makes it absolutely clear that this section itself contemplates adjudication of dispute in regard to apportionment etc. by the Court. It simply provides a simpler procedure of reference by the Collector himself. The object is to save the parties from unnecessary expenditure and wastage of time in filing a separate suit for the purpose. By any interpretation, from this provision, exclusion of jurisdiction of the Civil Court cannot be implied.” 11. I am also of the similar view that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court has not been either expressly ousted or impliedly ousted in the Land Acquisition Act. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Section 30 is a bar for the Civil Court to entertain the present suit cannot be accepted and hence, the order of the lower Court, keeping the question of maintainability open, is modified to the effect that I.A.No.804 of 2005 in O.S.No.66 of 2004 on the file of the learned Additional District Munsif, Nanguneri stands allowed holding that the suit in O.S.No.66 of 2004 is maintainable before the said Court. 12. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected C.M.P is closed.