D N NAGARAJA IYER Vs. STATE OF MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) First plaintiff is the appellant in the above Second Appeal. The first plaintiff viz., D.N. Nagaraja Iyer and one K. Krishnasamy Iyer filed O.S. No.150 of 67 on the file of Additional District Munsif, Dharmapuri for mandatory injunction against the defendants, namely, State of Madras represented by District Collector, Dhannapuri, and Union of India represented by General Manager, Southern Railway, directing them to retransfer the suit property to the plaintiff and for recovery of possession of the same. The case of the plaintiff is briefly as follows:-

(2.) It is further contended that in the year 1946 the Tahsildar of Dharmapuri on 11.6.1946 advertised the auction sale of the relinquished land calling upon the original owner or their descendants to apply for resale in their favour. The plaintiff sent an application to the District Collector for reassignment of the land in their favour. But they did not get any reply. The first plaintiff after commimg to understand that the relinquished Railway lands are sought to be assigned to third parties, submitted an application on 7.1.1963 to the District Revenue Officer, Sale, requesting him to drop or at least stay the assignment proceedings, pending disposal of their application for retransfer. The Revenue Department by its order dated 26.4.1964 has informed the plaintiff that the lands were not available for assignment as they were required for Railways. The suit property is no more required for the purpose for which it was acquired. New Railway line, Salem-Bangalore line is laid for away from the suit property. Therefore, the purpose of the acquisition has been ceased and the plaintiffs as the descendants of the original owners of the property acquired, are entitled to reassignment on payment of the cost price of acquisition. The plaintiffs issued a suit notice to the District Collector of Dharmapuri and the Union of India by the General Manager of Southern Railway on 30.5.1966. The plaintiffs did not get any reply from them. Hence the present suit is filed as stated above.

(3.) The first defendant has filed a written statement in the following manner:-