Minnalavu Ammal and other vs The Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai and others

Rajagopalan, J.—An area of 4460 square feet in T. S. No. 2695 in Ward No. III, West Madurai, was acquired under the provisions of the

Land Acquisition Act. After determining the amount payable as compensation. the Acquisition Officer held that in his opinion the amount was

payable to the registered owners, Poosari Asari and Sadayan Asari and that the amount payable to them had further to be apportioned between

them and their lessees Kasthuri Naidu and Narayanaswami Naidu. Even before the Acquisition Officer Vellsikannu Asari and eight others claimed

title to the land. Though the Acquisition Officer recorded his views that the money was payable to Kasthuri Naidu, Narayanaswami Naidu, Poosari

Asari and Sadayan Asari, the Acquisition Officer referred the question under S. 31 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, as he was bound to do. When

the reference came up before the learned Additional Subordinate Judge of Madurai, he pointed out that the Acquisition Officer himself had

decided the issue of title; the learned Sub Judge directed the return of the reference and declined to proceed further with the adjudication of the

dispute regarding title as between Kasturi Naidu, Narayanaswami Naidu, Poosari Asari and Sadayan Asari on the one hand and Vellaikannu and

the eight others on the other. The petitioners applied under S. 115, C. P. C., to revise the order of the teamed Subordinate Judge. The reference

was under S. 31 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act. The money was also deposited into Court. It was not within the jurisdiction of the Revenue

Divisional Officer as Acquisition Officer to decide disputed questions of title Whatever may be the views he recorded in the award, he eventually

directed that a reference should be made to the Subordinate judge''s Court under S. 31 (2) of the Act Once that reference was made, the

jurisdiction of the learned Subordinate judge was to decide the disputed question of title and to decide eventually to whom the compensation

amount should be paid and in what proportions. He was certainly not entitled to treat the question of adjudication of title as closed by the award of

the Land Acquisition Officer It is a case of the learned Subordinate Judge failing to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him by S. 31 (2) of Act, and

on that ground the order of the learned Subordinate Judge has to be set aside and the proceedings remanded to him for disposal afresh according

to law. Costa in revision will be costs in the cause and will be provided for in the revised order of the Subordinate Judge.