T. DURAIRAJAN Vs. SRI KASI VISWANATHASWAMY TEMPLE (TAWKERS CHARITIES) REPRESENTED BY TRUSTEES FOR THE TIME BEING SRI T.R. RAMANATHA DAVEY AND T.R. VISWANATHA DAVEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE second claimant in a reference made to the City Civil Court, Madras under Sections 30 and 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act is the appellant. On 34th April, 1963 a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued by the State Government to acquire an extent of about 140 grounds comprised in Survey Nos. 25/3 and 25/4 of Chinna Chembarambakkam and T.S. No. 1/2 of Ayanavaram for the public purpose of construction of a terminal station and depot for the Madras State Transport Department. The land belonged to Sri Kasi Viswanathaswami Temple administered by a body of trustees compendiously known as Tawker's Charities. The present appellant claims to be a lessee in respect of those lands. The Land Acquisition Officer, after due enquiry, fixed the market value of the acquired lands at Rs. 8,18,041.03 and on appeal to the civil Court it was enhanced to Rs. 9,04,769.81 But, as the Land Acquisition Officer could not determine the quantity and quality of lights in the property and thereafter in the compensation awarded inter se as between Tawker's Charities as the first claimant and the present appellant as the second claimant, he had to, as there was no agreement between the claimants regarding the proportion in which the compensation has to be apportioned as between them within the meaning of Section 29 of the Land Acquisition Act, refer the dispute under Section 30 to the Civil Court for a determination and settlement of the said dispute and for the ultimate ascertainment of the compensation payable to each, if both of them are entitled to it. It is in that context the reference was made to the trial Court. The trial Court apportioned the compensation in the proportion of one -fifth in the total compensation including the interest payable thereunder up to January, 1967 to the second claimant and directed that the first claimant would be entitled to the balance of four -fifths of the compensation and the interest payable therein which amount was directed to be invested in approved securities since the first claimant was a charitable and religious institution. The second claimant is aggrieved by the manner in which the trial Court apportioned the compensation as between himself and the Trust and hence the appeal in order to contend that the second claimant was not entitled to any portion of the compensation amount and that the apportionment of 1/5th of the compensation amount in his favour is wrong and erroneous, the first claimant has preferred the memorandum of cross -objections. The relevant facts may now be stated.

(2.) AS early as 1912, a scheme was made by the High Court, Madras, for the proper administration of the Trust known as -Tawker's Charities, which was both religious and secular. On an application taken out by the Advocate -General of Madras and the Hindu Religious Endowments Board, the scheme was modified by an order of this Court dated 24th September, 1937 whereunder the present Trustees were appointed as Trustees of the Tawker's Charities and they were directed to perform the obligations as contained in the' scheme. In order to improve the income of the Trust the Trustees applied, in June, 1959 for laying out the properties which are the subject -matter of acquisition and applied in lay -out Application No. 94 of 1959 to the Corporation of Madras for a division of the land for purposes of laying it out as building sites. But this application for lay -out was returned to the Trustees for certain modifications as is seen from the letter to the Corporation of Madras dated 30th June, 1959. The Trustees did not pursue this matter thereafter, but took out an application in the High Court for sanction to lease out these lands on certain terms and conditions proposed by them. This Court invited offers to find out whether the sale of the properties and reinvestment of the sale proceeds thereof would be more "beneficial to the Trust. Finding that the offers received from intending purchasers were not attractive, the Court expressed the view that the terms suggested by the Charities to lease out the properties were more beneficial to the Trust and therefore sanctioned the proposal of the Trustees to lease out the properties on terms and conditions suggested by them. This order was made by the High Court in Application No. 767 of 1960 on 1st July, 1960. Prior to the first claimant making such an offer, it obviously made discreet and private enquiries to find out the best method by which the property could be leased out. There were certain initial negotiations between the first claimant and the second claimant in which certain definite terms as to the proposed lease by Court. In fact, the second claimant while approving of the terms and stipulations under which he was prepared to take a lease of the properties, tendered a sum of Rs. 5,000 as earnest money to show his readiness and willingness to take properties on lease and which the Trustees could keep till the Court sanctioned the lease. After the Court approved of the terms and conditions of lease suggested by the first claimant and agreed to by the second claimant, the claimants entered into a lease deed Exhibit B -1 on 12th October, 1960 recording their agreement in due form and bringing out the lease deed into operation. We may at once refer to the terms and conditions of the said lease deed Exhibit B -1 which, was also renewed under Exhibit B -2.

(3.) UNDER Exhibit B -1 150 grounds of land belonging to the first claimant were leased out to the second claimant for a period of thirty years in the first instance with an option to the lessee for renewal of the least for a further period of thirty years for the purpose of erecting buildings thereon. The second claimant was to pay to the first claimant a rent of Rs. 5 per ground per month for the first thirty years and Rs. 7 -50 per ground per month for the subsequent period of thirty years. It was also agreed that as the demised property was intended to be developed by the lessee, the land required and covered by roads and pathways and not occupied by building shall be left out of account for the purpose of computing the area for levying the rent. The maximum percentage of the property which could be so left out for purpose of development, such' as roads, etc., was fixed at 25 per cent, of the total areas. In case it was found that the area so set apart for roads and development exceeds 25 per cent, then a stipulation in favour of the lessee was alternatively provided for Clause 5 of the lease deed says that the second claimant shall at his own cost prepare the necessary plans for a lay out of the area and submit the same to the Corporation of Madras and obtain its sanction for laying out the property for construction of buildings without unnecessary delay ; all charges towards laying of the roads, drainage, electricity, etc., to be incurred or payable to the Corporation authorities or otherwise relating to the above property in respect thereof shall be borne by the lessee. The sum of Rs. 5,000 tendered by the lessee even during the initial negotiations was treated as permanent deposit for the due fulfilment of the obligations under the lease Clause 7 expressly stated that at least in ten of the plots in the demised property, buildings shall be caused to be erected within a period of one year from the date of sanction of the lay out by the Corporation of Madras, and if within the period of one year the building in at least ten of the plots are not constructed as aforesaid, the first claimant shall be at liberty to demand payment of two years rent to be paid within one month of the date of notice, failing such payment the first claimant was at liberty to determine the lease and the second claimant shall forfeit the deposit of Rs. 5,000. The second claimant was at liberty to sub -lease the property or portion of the demised land. The second claimant took on the obligation to. pay all taxes, rates and assessments in respect of both the developed plots or of the structures and buildings to be raised thereon excepting the quit rent (Urban Land Tax) payable to the Government. At the end of sixty years the first claimant reserved for itself the right to purchase the superstructures on the land at the then market value. If the first claimant makes a default, then the second claimant had the option to continue for a further period of thirty years on same terms and conditions as contained in the deed. But the rate of rent, however, was altered to Rs. 9 per ground per month. There were other normal clauses with which we are not concerned in the present enquiry. The lessee exercised his option to secure the lease for a further period of thirty years and under Exhibit B -2 the agreement between the first and the second claimants regarding such renewal for a further period of thirty years was recorded and registered. The net result is that the second claimant secured a right as lessee over the properties acquired for a period of sixty years from 12th October, 1960.