MARUNDEESWARAR THIRUKOIL Vs. COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit in C.S.No.553 of 2005 is filed by the plaintiff for recovery of possession of the schedule mentioned properties, for damages for use and occupation at Rs.50,000/- per month for costs.

(2.) The contention of the plaintiff is that the suit properties measuring about 10.51 acres in S.No.24/12, 24/13 and 25/1 of Thiruvanmiyur Village belonged to the plaintiff. The 1st defendant viz., The Collector, Land Acquisition trespassed over the properties and handed over possession of the same to the 2nd defendant, viz., the Indian Institute of Technology, Madras. According to the plaintiff, there was no notification under the Land Acquisition Act or any other Act at the time of acquiring these lands from the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, the act of the 1st defendant in handing over the lands to the 2nd defendant would amount to trespass by the 1st defendant and the occupation of the 2nd defendant would be illegal occupation. It is also averred that the plaintiff issued a notice on 11.12.2004 under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure to the first defendant inter alia demanding surrender of possession and damages for use and occupation. The said notice did not evoke any response from the 1st defendant. However, the 2nd defendant sent a reply through their counsel seeking further details. In this back drop, the plaintiff has come forward with the above suit.

(3.) The 1st defendant had filed the written statement, contending that the Village of Tiruvanmiyur was within the jurisdiction of the District Collector of Chengalpattu till 1979 and it was included in Chennai District only thereafter, and therefore, the records relating to the acquisition were not available. The title of the plaintiff to the suit land was admitted. It was further contended by the 1st defendant that the lands in question were acquired even in the year 1962-1963, for the expansion of the Indian Institute of Technology, Madras and after following the due process of law, the acquisition process was completed and the lands in question were handed over to the 2nd defendant, even in the year 1963.