M.S. VENKATESAN Vs. LAND ACQUISITION CUM SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION CELL CHENNAI METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the fair and decretal order dated 19.04.2013 made in I.A.No.12294 of 2012 in L.A.O.P.No.5 of 2004 on the file of the VI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.

(2.) The petitioner is third claimant, the first respondent is Referring Authority and respondents 2 and 3 are the claimants 1 and 2 in L.A.O.P.No.5 of 2004 on the file of the VI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai. According to the petitioner, originally, he owned an extent of 97 cents in Old Survey No.63/3, Koyambedu Village and sold an 60 cents Thangakrishna Nadar and another 20 cents to Palani Naicker. The petitioner retained 17 cents for his personal use. In the year 1994, he came to know that the respondents 2 and 3 forged documents fraudulently and claimed to be owners for the suit property measuring 17 cents in Survey No.63/3. The petitioner filed complaint before XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet. Meanwhile, the land in Survey No.63/1B was acquired by the Government for the purpose of Koyambedu Wholesale Market Complex. The petitioner's name was shown as owner of the land under Section 4(1) notification in Tamilnadu Government Gazette dated 25.09.2001. While so, the respondents 2 and 3 claim ownership for the suit property. The matter was referred to the Court for apportionment of compensation. The third respondent/second claimant filed proof affidavit and marked final report submitted by the Police in D.F.I.R.No.642/1994 as Ex.C10 to show that signature and thumb impression in disputed sale deeds belong to the petitioner. The petitioner filed I.A.No.12294 of 2012 for rejection of document marked by respondents 2 and 3 as Ex.C10 in the proof affidavit as the same cannot be considered as evidence as per Section 33 of the Evidence Act.

(3.) The respondents 2 and 3 filed common counter affidavit and contended that second respondent purchased an extent of 10 cents and second respondent's mother, Janaki Ammal purchased 7 cents on 01.02.1964. The said Janaki Ammal settled the said 7 cents in favour of the third respondent by the settlement deed dated 206.1989. The petitioner filed suit in O.S.No.6809 of 1997 on the file of the XVII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai which was dismissed for default. The signature and thumb impression in the sale deeds is not forged, but it is genuine one. The petitioner executed the sale deed in favour of the second respondent and mother of the second respondent by two sale deeds both dated 01.02.1964. In the complaint filed by the petitioner, final report was filed stating that the thumb impression and signature in the sale deeds are that of the petitioner. Final report was taken on file and complaint was closed and prayed for dismissal of the application.