Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 4065 (MAD)

K. B. Vishnuram v. State of Tamil Nadu

2014-10-30

R.MAHADEVAN

body2014
Judgment : 1. Aggrieved against the acquisition of land, the owner of the land in acquisition, has come up with the present second appeal as against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.9 of 2006 on the file of the Sub Court, Mannargudi which confirmed the award of the Land Acquisition Officer in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.1016/98A dated 5.1.2000. 2. The facts relevant for the disposal of the second appeal is as follows:- The appellant possessed of the land in acquisition and the same was acquired by the respondents for the Tamil Nadu Harijan Welfare Scheme. In this regard, section 4(1) notification dated 15.12.1998 was sent to the appellant denoting him as minor and under the guardianship of Ramalinga Mudaliar, against which, the father of the appellant by name K.R.Balasubramania Mudaliar had appeared on 5.1.1999 for enquiry, but, did not object to the acquisition and hence, the Gazette notification was published on 15.2.1999 and the land was acquired by the respondents and compensation for the lands acquired was awarded for a sum of of Rs.14,835/= by the second respondent herein. Aggrieved over the same, the appellant preferred A.S.No.9 of 2006 before the Sub Court, Mannargudi. Pending appeal, the appellant also filed an application before the Sub Court for receiving certain documents. The appellate court dismissed the appeal as well as the application filed by the appellant confirming the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. Aggrieved against the same, the present second appeal has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant was not a minor at the time of the acquisition proceedings and hence, he ought to have been served with the notices properly prior to acquisition of the land and the application filed by his father about the appellant's attaining majority was also not properly considered by the Land Acquisition Officer, who had gone only by the revenue records without considering the fact that the appellant had attained majority which was taken to his knowledge by the father of the appellant and the appellate court has also not properly considered those aspects and hence, sought for indulgence of this court. 4. 4. Learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents had submitted that the land acquisition proceedings was done only observing the procedure contemplated under the Land Acquisition Act and proper notices were served on the appellant, but, the appellant had not taken care to object or put forth his case before the Land Acquisition Officer in time and the appellate court also considered those aspects and hence, the second appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5. The land, which was acquired, was in the name of the appellant. Perhaps, it must have been purchased in his name while he was a minor and such a status is reflected in the revenue records with the guardianship of one Ramalinga Mudaliar, who died, according to the appellant, in the year 1988 itself. According to the appellant, he born in the year 1961. He seems to have produced certain documents by filing an application, one among the same is his SSLC certificate, but, the appellate court had not considered such documents in proper perspective. It cannot be disputed that a person, who will be aggrieved by the land acquisition, needs to be served properly and an opportunity should be given to him to putforth his case or objections, if any. 6. Hence, this court is of the view that the matter has to be remanded to the appellate court for fresh disposal after affording an opportunity to the appellant to putforth his case or objections, if any. 7. In the result, the second appeal succeeds. The judgment and decree in A.S.No.9 of 2006 on the file of the Sub Judge, Mannargudi is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Sub Court, Mannargudi with a direction to the appellate court to dispose of the appeal after affording due opportunity to the parties within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. No costs.