RANGASWAMY ALIAS GOVINDARAM DIED OTHERS Vs. DEPUTY COLLECTOR REVENUE CUM LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER PONDICHERRY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above two revisions filed under Sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure may be dealt with and disposed of together since they involve identical and common questions of law.

(2.) C. R. P. No. 2536 of 1996 has been filed against the order dated 30. 4. 1996 in C. R. A. No. 20 of 1994 in L. A. O. P. No. 139 of 1976. C. R. P. No. 2537 of 1996 has been filed against the order dated 30. 4. 1996 in c. R. A. No. 19 of 1994 in L. A. O. P. No. 140 of 1976. Both the above orders have been passed by the Principal District Judge at Pondicherry . The applications dealt with by the Court below, were filed under 0. 47, Rule 1 read with Sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The common averments that have been made in both the applications are that in L. A. O. P. Nos. 139 and 140 of 1976, the respective petitioners i. e. , the deceased 1st petitioner in C. R. P. No. 2536 of 1996 and the petitioner in C. R. P. No. 2537 of 1996, were claimants and the matter was disposed of by the learned Subordinate Judge, Pondicherry. The matter has been pursued on appeal by the State and the deceased 1st petitioner in C. R. P. No. 2536 of 1996 was the respondent in A. S. No. 568 of 1983 on the file of this Court and the petitioner in C. R. P. No. 2537 of 1996 was the respondent in A. S. No. 570 of 1983 before this Court. While disposing of the main appeals, their lordships of the Division Bench ordered in paragraph 8 of the judgment as follows: ' So far as solatium and interest are concerned, we find that question has been referred to the larger Bench of the supreme Court as to the applicability of the amended Act to the acquisitions made before the commencement of the said Act. We also find, in such cases the supreme Court has given liberty to the claimants to ask for review of the judgment after final orders are passed by the Supreme Court. Following the said procedure, we given liberty to the respondents to ask for review of the judgment regarding solatium and interest payable under the amended Act. It is made clear that we do not decide anything about the right of the respondents to receive the said amounts at this stage.' As a consequence of the above the present applications dealt with and disposed of by the court below came to be filed.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners, while placing reliance upon a decision of a learned single Judge of this Court in Cooppousamy v. Alamelu, (1988)1 M. L. J. 432 and the relevant provisions contained in the limitation Act, 1963, as also the Land Acquisition Act and the French Civil code, contended that the learned Judge in the court below was in error in holding that the application was barred by limitation and that the learned trial Judge ought to have held that Art. 2262 of the French Civil Code applied on all fours to the case on hand and there should have been an adjudication of the claims on merits.