AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Bellie, J.—The four plaintiffs (who are brothers) who have lost their case in the trial court are the appellants.
The plaintiffs'' case is that the suit lands of 19 cents in Survey No. 43/1B, 30 cents in Survey No. 43/1A and 25 cents in Survey No. 43/3B all
totalling to 14 cents in Paiyur Pallavayal village belong to them. While the adjacent land of an extent of 2.26-acres in Survey No. 43/3B was being
acquired by the Government for the purpose of a bus depot for the Pandian Roadways Corporation, Madurai, the suit lands were also sought to
be acquired for the defendant-Corporation for the purpose of construction of operation godown. Since the defendant-Corporation required the
suit lands for urgent construction of the godown it directly entered into a deal with the plaintiff to straightaway purchase the lands and in that
connection on 27.4.1978 the parties entered into a written agreement and as per the terms and conditions of the said agreement the defendants
agreed to purchase the land at the price to be fixed under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. In pursuance of this agreement the
defendant-Corporation has been put in possession of the land on 22.11.1978. Since the adjacent land in Survey No. 43/3B has been acquired it
was thought by the parties that the amount that would be awarded to that land would be adopted as the price for the suit land. Therefore no
separate acquisition proceedings were initiated in respect of the suit lands. For the adjacent land in Award No. 4/79-80 the Land Acquisition
Officer fixed the value of the land at Rs. 12,121 per acre. The claimants therein dissatisfied, sought a reference to the court and in the court in O.P.
No. 4 of 1980 enhanced compensation was fixed at Rs. 2.00 per sq.foot. Thereupon, the plaintiffs demanded from the defendants to pay
compensation at the rate of Rs. 2.00 per sq.foot. with solatium and interest as awarded to the adjacent land in the land acquisition proceedings.
The defendants asked the plaintiff to send the title deeds, and also informed them that the matter would be referred to the Collector for fixing the
value of the land and payment would be made as soon as the sale is effected. The plaintiffs in their letter dated 12.11.1979 informed the
defendants that the lands belong to them ancestrally and they have not been encumbered in any way. The plaintiffs then referred to a number of
correspondences and they have stated ultimately that they have sent a lawyer''s notice demanding payment of the amount on the basis of the award
amount fixed in O.P. No. 4 of 1980, but inspite of that no payment was made. The plaintiffs would further state that on the basis of the value of the
land fixed in O.P. No. 4 of 1980 and solatium and interest awarded therein the defendants are liable to pay the plaintiffs for the suit land a sum of
Rs. 89,623.69. Then stating that the plaintiffs are always ready and willing to perform their part of the contract by executing a sale deed, they have
prayed for a decree for specific performance of the contract by the defendant by payment of the said sum of Rs. 89.623.69.
The defendants in their written statement contended that there was no agreement entered into between the plaintiffs and defendants as alleged.
The plaintiffs agreed to receive the compensation amount which would be fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer later on and they handed over
possession of the land to them under the consent letter dated 24.4.1978, and therefore there is no agreement to enforce and hence the suit for
specific performance of the agreement is not maintainable. Even if it is to be held that the consent letter dated 27.4.1978 is an agreement then the
suit is hopelessly barred by limitation. If the said letter is an agreement then the only remedy of the plaintiffs is to enforce for acquisition of the land
and passing an order for compensation. The present suit is really not for enforcement of any agreement but only for money. The revenue officials
have fixed the value of the suit land at Rs. 12,121 per acre. The defendants never agreed to pay a price of the suit land an amount calculated at the
rate of compensation to be fixed for the adjacent land.
The trial court on consideration of the evidence adduced in the case held that the defendants never agreed to pay sale price to the suit lands on
the basis of the amount awarded in O.P. No. 4 of 1980, and that there is no agreement for specific performance and the plaintiffs are not entitled
to the amount claimed in the suit. It further held that the suit is barred by limitation. On these findings the trial court has dismissed the suit.
The question that arises for consideration in the appeal is whether the defendants are liable to pay the amount claimed in the suit viz., Rs.
89.623.69 to the plaintiffs. It is not in dispute that the defendants have taken possession of the plaintiffs'' land under the consent letter Ex. A-2
given by the plaintiffs on 27.4.1978. The plaintiffs'' case appears to be that the defendants agreed to pay, in a written agreement, the price to the
land calculated on the basis of the award to be passed in respect of the adjacent land. The defendants deny that they so agreed.
The plaintiffs have filed Ex. A-2 as the agreement. In this document only the plaintiffs have signed and not the defendants. Therein the plaintiffs
have stated that they have learnt that there is a proposal for acquisition of this land and the defendants are in urgent need to take possession of the
land and therefore they are giving possession of the land to the defendants and they have agreed to receive the amount that would be arrived at as
per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act.
From this the only thing that could be understood is that the price for the land would be the award amount that would be passed by the Land
Acquisition Officer on acquisition of this land. But so far, this land has not been acquired. But in the suit the plaintiffs would claim that the
defendants are liable to pay the amount for the land calculated on the basis of the award passed in respect of the adjacent land in O.P. No. 4 of
1980, but the defendants have never agreed to such a course. Neither in Ex. A-2 nor in any one of the subsequent correspondences the
defendants have agreed to pay in the manner in which it is now claimed by the plaintiffs. Therefore the suit filed for recovery of Rs. 89.623.69
calculated on the basis of the award passed for the adjacent land certainly cannot be maintained. Clearly the suit is mis-conceived. May be they
have a right to require the Government to acquire the land and pass an award, but that is not the prayer in the present suit and such a remedy
cannot also be granted in this suit. They may also ask for alternative relief of re-delivery of possession and damages.
In this view of mine, I am not giving a decision as to the maintainability of the suit on the question of limitation. In the result the appeal is
dismissed. No costs.
Abdul Hadi, J.
Since my learned senior brother has set out briefly the pleadings and the conclusions reached by the court below in the first four paragraphs of his
judgment, I am not setting them out separately in this my differing judgment also, and I proceed to the discussion.
The question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the plaintiffs are entitled to specific performance directing the defendants to
pay a sum of Rs. 89.623.69 to the plaintiffs towards the value of the suit lands with interest at 4% per annum from the date of the suit till the date
of execution of the sale deed and payment of the said price and take a sale deed duly executed and registered in respect of the said lands by the
plaintiffs. The specific performance prayed for is pursuant to Ex. A-2 consent letter given by the plaintiffs on 27.4.1978. It is also not in dispute
that the defendants have taken possession of the plaintiffs'' land on 22.11.1978 pursuant to the said consent letter and as shown by Ex. A-3 signed
by both the parties.
In the said letter Ex. A-2, after referring to the suit lands of 74 cents in S. Nos. 43/1B, 43/1Cand 43/3C, it is recited as follows:
So, as per Ex. A-2, the plaintiffs have agreed to receive the compensation amount and interest thereon in respect of the said lands as per the Land
Acquisition Act.
In the above context, it cannot also be said that there was no sale agreement as such between the parties. No doubt Ex. A-2 is a letter written
by the plaintiffs alone. But pursuant to. Ex. A-2, the defendants have taken possession of the suit lands mentioned in Ex. A-2 and are enjoying it all
these years by putting up construction etc. So, it is clear that impliedly a valid agreement of sale had come into force between the parties.
No doubt as per Ex. A-2, the plaintiffs agreed to receive the said compensation amount and interest thereon as per the above said Act through
the Land Acquisition Officer. But, Ex. A-2 does not say that the compensation amount payable is only the amount fixed by the Land Acquisition
Officer. All that it says is that the amount payable to the plaintiffs is the compensation amount as per the Land Acquisition Act.
D.W. 1, the Superintendent of the defendants-Corporation has admitted in cross-examination that the defendants agreed to buy the said lands
as per the conditions mentioned in Ex. A-2. His deposition in this regard is as follows:
Therefore, it is clear that the defendants have to pay compensation for the suit lands as per the Land Acquisition Act.
But, that does not mean that the land acquisition proceeding has to be initiated even with reference to the suit lands just to determine the
compensation that could be paid in respect of the suit lands. Ex. A-2 also does not specifically say that the said compensation amount should be
arrived at only by initiating a land acquisition proceeding in respect of the suit lands. All that it says is that the suit lands should get compensation
amount as per the Land Acquisition Act. No doubt, it also adds that on the above said compensation amount, the plaintiffs are also entitled to
interest from the date of Ex. A-2, that is 27.4.1978 till the date of the award. From the use of the word ""award"" in Ex. A-2, it may be argued that
a land acquisition proceeding has to be initiated even in respect of the suit lands. But, so far, even though 14 years have elapsed, no such land
acquisition proceeding has been initiated in respect of the suit lands. Now it would be very much inequitable if a direction is given for initiation of
land acquisition proceedings in respect of the suit lands at this distance of time. Further, supposing a land acquisition notification u/s 4(1) of the Act
is to be issued in respect of the suit lands now for the first time, strictly speaking the compensation amount could be fixed in accordance with the
said Act taking into account the market value of the suit lands as on the date of the publication of the said notification. That also will not be
reasonable or fair from the point of view of the defendants also.
That apart, there is clear evidence as to how much compensation is payable for the suit lands as per the Land Acquisition Act, in view of the
fact that for the very land adjacent to the suit lands belonging to the plaintiffs themselves, compensation has been fixed by the court in O.P. No. 4
of 1980 as shown by Ex. A-10 has also been confirmed by the High Court by judgment dated 16.6.1989 in A.S. No. 324 of 1984. While the suit
lands are 74 cents in S. Nos. 43/1B, 43/1A and 43/3B, the lands for which the abovesaid compensation has been fixed as per Ex. A-10 are only
in S. No. 43/3B. Even one of the suit lands and the above said Ex. A-10 lands are in one and the same survey number. Further, even in the
present plaint in paragraph 6 it is specifically stated that the above said 2.26 acres of lands are only adjacent to the suit lands. With reference to
these allegations, there is no denial. Further, Ex. A-10 judgment was given by the civil court in the reference u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act in
respect of the abovesaid 2.26 acres of land. I find that as per the evidence of P.W.5 in the said proceeding, who is the Record Clerk of the
District Registrar''s office, the Government is collecting Rs. 2.25 as stamp duty per sq.ft. in case of sales ""in the very same ward and its
neighborhood"". For this reason and other reasons, the learned Judge, passed the award in the said proceeding came to the conclusion that the
claimants therein including the present plaintiffs are entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 2 per sq.ft. In the above circumstances, it is clear that
the same rate of compensation could be awarded, to the present suit lands also and there is no necessity to initiate another land acquisition
proceeding in respect of the suit lands just to determine the compensation payable under the said Act.
It is highly deplorable that the defendants have not paid the compensation amount so far even though 14 years have gone by since they took
possession of the suit lands and enjoying the same all these years by putting up construction. In view of the said attitude of the defendants, the
plaintiffs were even forced to file W.P. No. 6407 of 1983 on the file of this Court claiming the present suit relief. The defendants entered
appearance in the said writ petition. But the said writ petition had to be dismissed by this Court on the ground that the matter could be better
resolved in a civil court by way of a suit. However, it is to be noted that even in the said dismissal order in the said writ petition, this Court has
observed that there is some legitimate basis for the petitioners to claim compensation at the rate of Rs. 2 per sq.ft. Yet, the defendants even after
the disposal of the said writ petition, did not take steps to pay compensation to the plaintiffs as per the agreement reached with the plaintiffs. Even
in their written statement dated 29.3.1985 it is stated, ""the price fixed by the Revenue Authorities as Rs. 12,121 per acre on the date of taking
possession by T.N.CS.C. is fair and reasonable. The defendant is prepared to pay the cost of land value immediately as fixed by the Revenue
Authority."" [Italics supplied]. Further even in Ex. A-12 letter dated 26.3.1980, the learned Counsel for the plaintiffs stated that the plaintiffs are
willing to receive at the rate of Rs. 12,121 per acre, without prejudice to the plaintiffs'' right to move the court for fixing the compensation at Rs. 2
per sq.ft. But even at the above said rate of Rs. 12,121 per acre, compensation has not been paid. It is indeed very sad that a public undertaking
like the defendants-Corporation is behaving in this fashion with the citizens of the country like the plaintiffs, especially when the value of the money
is going down every day steeply. The sadness is further aggravated when it is seen that in order to enable the said defendants to put up godowns
on the suit lands urgently to meet the public needs, the plaintiffs themselves consented to part with possession of the suit lands in 1978 itself
pursuant to Ex. A-2, without forcing the Government to initiate actual land acquisition proceeding under the Act, which would, apart from other
things, only postpone taking delivery of possession of the suit lands, to a great extent.
Looking at from another angle also, it is clear that the defendants have been acting in a deplorably callous manner. Though they have taken
possession of the suit lands in 1978 itself, they have not realised that they have not secured title to the suit lands since a registered sale deed has not
been obtained in respect of the suit lands from the plaintiffs. Atleast for securing the title the defendants should have taken necessary steps to see
that the compensation amount was fixed pursuant to Ex. A-2 expeditiously. On the other hand, it is defendants who have been delaying the matter
as shown by the correspondence between the parties.
It must also be stated that the above said price of Rs. 12,121 per acre is only an amount fixed unilaterally by the above said Revenue Authority
while Ex. A-2, as already stated, stipulates that the compensation should be fixed as per the Land Acquisition Act. If the procedure prescribed
under the Land Acquisition Act is applied and the compensation is fixed, the plaintiffs-land owners would have had the opportunity to adduce
evidence relating to the market value of the property in the enquiry that would have been held pursuant to the provisions of the said Act. Without
affording any such opportunity, if some amount is fixed unilaterally and that too by some ""Revenue Authority"", the said amount cannot be termed
fair and reasonable"", nor the plaintiffs are bound by the said amount fixed unilaterally. The said amount cannot be termed as the amount arrived at
pursuant to the terms of Ex. A-2.
There is also another question raised in the suit, viz., the question of limitation since the defendants contend that the suit is barred by the law of
limitation. No doubt the court below went into this question also and held against the plaintiffs by holding that the suit is barred by the law of
limitation. It took into account Article 113 of the Limitation Act. But that residuary Article will have no application since there is a specific article,
viz., Article 54 dealing specifically with suits for specific performance. As per the said Article, the prescribed period of limitation is three years from
the date fixed for the specific performance of the contract and if no date has been fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused. In
the present case, there was no specific date fixed for the performance of the contract. Then time will begin to run only from the date when the
plaintiffs had notice that performance is refused by the defendants. But in the present case, there is absolutely no such refusal at all. All that the
defendants say is that the price payable as per the agreement between the parties is only Rs. 12,121 per acre and not as claimed by the plaintiffs,
that is, Rs. 2 per sq.ft. This cannot be taken as refusal on the part of the defendants to perform the contract. The price of the suit lands having been
not fixed at the time of the sale agreement, at worst, it could be said that there was dispute between the parties in the fixation of price and in the
interpretation that has to be put to the phraseology used in Ex. A-2, (based on which the defendants took possession of the suit lands and impliedly
agreed to buy the said lands accordingly), regarding fixation of price. That is all. Therefore, time has not begun to run at all against the plaintiffs.
Therefore, the suit is not barred by limitation.
In the result, the suit is decreed as prayed for with costs and accordingly the appeal is allowed with costs.
In pursuance of the directions of the Hon''ble the Acting Chief Justice, this appeal coming on for hearing before the Hon''ble Mr. Justice Srinivasan,
on Friday, the 12th day of February, 1993.
This appeal is posted before me on a difference of opinion between Bellie and Abdul Hadi, JJ. The facts are set out in detail in the Judgment of
Bellie, J. I do not find any necessity to repeat the same in this judgment.
The point which arises for consideration in short is whether the plaintiffs are entitled to claim the value of the land at Rs. 2 per sq.foot. as
decided in O.P. No. 4 of 1980, a proceeding arising out of acquisition for an adjacent land belonging to the plaintiffs. Yet another question will be
whether the suit is barred by limitation. Bellie, J. has expressed his opinion that the suit is not maintainable, as there is no agreement between the
parties for the sale of the land at the price claimed by the plaintiffs. He has not gone into the question of limitation. On the other hand, Abdul Hadi,
J has taken the view that the agreement is evidenced by Ex. A-2, the document which is signed by the plaintiffs, though not signed by anybody on
behalf of the defendants. He has also held that the suit is in time.
Ex. A-2 agreement is dated 27.4.1978. All the plaintiffs have signed the same in the presence of the headman viz., Village Karnam. It is staled
in the document that the plaintiffs are the owners of the lands described therein and they are aware that the lands are required for the purpose of
construction of a godown for the defendant viz., Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation. It is also stated that the lands are required immediately for
the purpose of the Corporation and that the plaintiffs will be handing over possession of the lands to the Corporation. The last sentence in the
document is most relevant part of it and it reads as follows:
The plaintiffs have stated in the above sentence that they are agreeable to accept the compensation which may be fixed in the acquisition
proceedings, as per the Land Acquisition Act and that they are also agreeable to accept the interest as per the Act till the date of award.
Admittedly, there was no document executed by the defendants. The defendants have also admittedly taken possession of the land as
evidenced by Ex. A-3, dated 22.11.1978. Ex. A-3 refers to two letters dated 28.10.1978 and 4.11.1978 of the Regional Manager of the
Corporation, Ramanathapuram at Madurai. The purpose of the transfer is mentioned as construction of operational godown in the Taluk
Headquarters at Sivaganga. The transfer is dated 22.11.1978. The document bears the title Land Transfer statement''. The fact that the defendants
have taken possession of the land as per Ex. A-3 without there being any other document containing the terms of transfer shows that the
defendants have agreed to pay the price as set out in Ex. A-2.
Apart from that D.W.I the only witness examined by the defendants has clearly admitted that the land was taken by the defendants on transfer
only according to the conditions contained in Ex. A-2. The relevant part of the deposition reads thus:
In view of the admission by D.W. 1, it is not open to j the defendants to contend that they I ad not agreed to pay the amount as stated in Ex. A-2.
There was no proceeding for acquisition of the suit land in question. It was also unnecessary to have acquisition proceedings as it would take
long time for occupation. The defendants wanted to take possession immediately of the property and it was handed over by the plaintiffs only on
the basis of the terms set out in Ex. A-2. Hence, the defendants are bound to pay the compensation as per the terms contained in Ex. A-2. It is not
in dispute that in O.P. No. 4 of 1980, compensation has been fixed by the Subordinate Judge, Sivaganga at Rs. 2 per sq. foot. It is also now
admitted that the said award has been affirmed in an appeal by this Court in A.S. No. 324 of 1984.
Learned Counsel for the respondents placed reliance on Ex. A-6, which is a letter written by the defendants to the plaintiffs'' lawyer on
10.8.1979. It is stated therein that the defendant have addressed the Collector of Ramanathapuram to fix the rate of land cost at an immediate date
and payment will be done as soon as the documentation for the same was effected. The said letter does not take the defendants anywhere. The
defendants cannot go back on the terms agreed to in Ex. A-2. It is not open to the defendants to contend that they will pay only the amount that
may be fixed by the District Revenue Officer or the Collector and not the amount fixed in the land acquisition proceedings.
It is also seen from the correspondence that the defendants have been protracting the matter by repeatedly asking for certain kist receipts and
documents of title. The plaintiffs have made it clear to the defendants that there was no document of title as it was an ancestral property and that
they had also furnished all the documents which were available with them. In the circumstances it is not possible for the defendants to contend that
they would be liable to pay a sum much lesser than the sum fixed in the land acquisition proceedings.
There is also no substance in the contention that the suit is barred by limitation. The defendants have never repudiated the claim made by the
plaintiffs except with regard to the quantum of the amount. They only disputed the quantum of amount claimed by the plaintiffs. Even in the present
proceedings the stand taken by the defendants is that they would pay the sum fixed by the District Revenue Officer at Rs. 12,121 per acre and that
they would not pay the value fixed on the properties in the land acquisition proceedings. Article 54 of the Limitation Act will govern the situation.
The suit is certainly within time, as there was no refusal on the part of the defendants to perform the contract. The suit has been filed on 16.2.1984.
Even in the letter dated 29.11.1982 the defendants had only called for certain documents from the plaintiffs and they have not repudiated the
contract as such.
In the circumstances, I agree with the view taken by Abdul Hadi, J. and I hold that the appeal has to be allowed and that the suit has to be
decreed as prayed for.
Pursuant to the aforesaid judgment, this appeal coming on for hearing on this day, the court delivered the following
In conformity with the majority view, the appeal is allowed with costs and the suit is decreed with costs as prayed for.