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

P. Rajagopalan, J.—An area of 4480 square feet in T. S. No. 2635 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, Vellaikannu 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 Sec. 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 Kasthuri 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 learned Subordinate Judge.

The reference was under Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec.

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