S KAMALA Vs. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is for a direction against the respondents to pay the entire accrued interest in respect of the compensation amount, including the enhanced compensation payable in respect of the land comprised in R.S.No.167/1 measuring 4.16 Acres situated at Thallakulam Village, Madurai District.

(2.) The petitioner's husband is stated to be a service holder performing service of Nachiarparikalam and Sannadhi Paricharakam since 1956 at Arulmigu Kallalaghar Thirukoil till his death on 20.3.1992. It is stated that her husband's predecessors were granted service inam in respect of the land measuring 4.16 Acres comprised in R.S.No.167/1, Thallakulam Village, Madurai for the service of Paricharakam Pagoda of Kallalaghar Devasthanam and petitioner's husband and his predecessors were in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the said land and they were utilizing the income therefrom in lieu of the services rendered. 2.2. It is stated that the petitioner's husband has sold an extent of 2.53 Acres of land out of 4.16 Acres to one Gopal Naidu on 1.3.1960 and that sale deed was not questioned by the first respondent/Devasthanam. According to the petitioner, her husband being the service holder was entitled to the absolute enjoyment. The Government has acquired the land in the year 1963 and that resulted in claiming compensation by the first respondent/Devasthanam, the petitioner's husband and the alienee. LAOP No.564 of 1965 was filed on the file of the I Additional Sub Court, Madurai under Sections 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act and there was an apportionment of the compensation among the claimants. As against which, the alienee Gopal Naidu filed A.S.No.769 of 1967, the first respondent filed Appeal in A.S.No.15 of 1968 and the petitioner's husband filed A.S.No.631 of 1972 before the High Court. 2.3. By judgment dated 17.11.1972 in A.S.Nos.769 of 1967 and 15 of 1968, the Division Bench of this Court has held that the alienee is not entitled to claim any compensation and that the first respondent/ Devasthanam is also not entitled to claim compensation. However, there was a direction issued to the first respondent for securing the compensation amount so that the service may be continued. In the appeal filed by the petitioner's husband in A.S.No.631 of 1972, there was an order stating that in respect of his paricharakam service in the temple, so long as he continues to perform his service, he will be entitled to receive interest on the compensation amount from the first respondent/ Devasthanam, which the first respondent/Devasthanam is receiving by way of interest from the investment of the entire compensation amount in respect of 4.16 Acres in R.S.No.167/1, Thallakulam Village. 2.4. According to the petitioner, by virtue of the judgment in first appeals, the first respondent/Devasthanam is bound to pay the amount to her husband by return from the investment of compensation amount. It is stated that the interest amount of ` 75,993.75 lying in the credit of L.A.O.P.No.477 of 1965 on the file of the I Additional Sub Court, Madurai, was withdrawn by the first respondent in I.A.No.250 of 1986 and out of the same the petitioner's husband was stated to have been paid an amount of ` 60,000/- during his life time. 2.5. The petitioner's husband died on 20.3.1992, leaving behind him six minor daughters aged between 2= years and 17 years. It is stated that the first respondent is refusing to pay the amount on the ground that there is a clerical error in the decree and in spite of her representation, the amount has not been paid. It is also stated that the first respondent has admitted its liability in I.A.No.250 of 1985 in I.A.No.403 of 1985 in L.A.O.P.No.477 of 1965 stating that entire compensation amount has to be invested and the accrued interest has to be paid to the petitioner's husband, being the service holder. 2.6. It is also stated that the alienee is not entitled to receive compensation amount in respect of 2.53 Acres purchased from the petitioner's husband. It is stated that the compensation amount deposited in the lower court was withdrawn by the first respondent and the same was renewed periodically accruing more than ` 10 Lakhs with accrued interest ever since 1963, viz., for the past 40 years. Hence, the present writ petition is filed for a direction as stated above.

(3.) In the counter affidavit filed by the Executive Officer of the first respondent/Devasthanam, it is stated that the first respondent is a listed Public Temple notified under Section 46 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 and is administered by the Executive Officer. 3.2. While it is admitted that the predecessors of the petitioner's husband were granted service inam in respect of the land measuring 4.16 Acres comprised in R.S.No.167/1, Thallakulam Villagem, Madurai for rendering service in the first respondent/Devasthanam, it is stated that contrary to the said condition the petitioner's husband has sold 2.53 Acres of the temple lands under the sale deed dated 1.3.1960 to one Gopal Naidu. It is the case of the first respondent that the petitioner's husband being a service holder with permissible possession has no right to sell the said lands. 3.3. It is stated that thereafter the entire lands were acquired by the Government and the first respondent/Devasthanam, being the owner, has claimed compensation in respect of the entire amount. However, it is stated that the petitioner's husband has claimed compensation only in respect of 1.63 Acres and his alienee has claimed compensation in respect of the extent purchased by him. The Additional Sub Court, Madurai in L.A.O.P.No.564 of 1965 has held that the first respondent is not entitled to claim compensation amount since the grant of land to the petitioner's husband is personal in nature. 3.4. It was against the said order, the alienee filed appeal in A.S.No.769 of 1967, the first respondent/Devasthanam filed A.S.No.15 of 1968 and thereafter, the petitioner's husband filed A.S.No.631 of 1972 before this Court. The appeals filed by the first respondent as well as the alienee came to be dismissed holding that the alienee has no right to receive from the petitioner's husband any title and stating that the first respondent was also not entitled to any compensation amount. But in the appeal filed by the petitioner's husband in A.S.No.631 of 1972, even though it was held that the first respondent was not entitled to receive the compensation amount, it was observed that so long as the petitioner's husband continues to perform the services, he will be entitled to receive from the first respondent/Devasthanam such amount as the first respondent may receive by way of return from the investments made in the LAOP. 3.5. It is pursuant to the direction of the High Court, the first respondent has withdrawn ` 60,007.25 towards proportionate interest and paid the same to the petitioner's husband by way of cheques and the petitioner's husband has received it without raising any dispute during his life time. It is also stated that the petitioner's husband has in fact restricted his claim only in respect of 1.63 Acres retained by him and it was only for that extent the proportionate interest was paid to him. For the representation made by the petitioner after the death of her husband, which was made by her on 1.3.1993, a reply was given on 15.3.1993 stating that the petitioner was entitled to only the proportionate interest in respect of the land retained by him. Apart from the said amount, it is stated that the petitioner's husband was also paid ` 500/- towards his monthly remuneration, a further sum of ` 750/- to ` 800/- per month towards his share in the issue of Archana Ticket and also his annual share of ` 14,000/- towards the sale of prasadam. It is stated that the amount due to the petitioner's husband has been paid till his death. 3.6. It is also stated that after the demise of the petitioner's husband, qualified persons have been appointed to continue the Amudhar service in the first respondent/Devasthanam. It is stated that even though the petitioner claimed that after the demise of her husband she is entitled to perform the Paricharakam Service in the temple through an agent or by proxy, that claim was rejected and against the same, she filed W.P.No.20525 of 1992, which was also dismissed on merits.