UNION OF INDIA Vs. NATESAN AND CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendants are the appellants herein. The plaintiff, who is the respondent herein, filed a suit seeking a direction to the defendants by way of Mandatory Injunction to pass an Award in respect of the suit properties which belong to the plaintiff and acquired by the defendants in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act.

(2.) IT is contended by the plaintiff Partnership Firm that the suit properties originally belonged to Gnanamoorthy and Arthanathan, the partners of the plaintiff Partnership Firm. Later on, the suit properties were brought into the stock of the Firm after the formation of the Partnership Firm in the year 1972. Thus the plaintiff has become the absolute owner of the suit property. The 2nd defendant effected Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 for the purpose of laying East Coast Highway. The 2nd defendant made a declaration under Section 6 of the Act to the effect that the suit properties were acquired for formation of East Coast Road. Notices were issued by the 3rd defendant to the partners of the plaintiff under Sections 9 (3) and 10 of the said Act. The defendants have taken possession of the suit properties and laid the roads thereon, without intimating the award passed in respect of the acquisition of lands and offering the plaintiff any compensation for the land. But the 3rd defendant passed an Award in respect of other lands acquired under the very same Notification issued by him. Even after conducting an enquiry as envisaged under Section 11 of the Act, the 3rd defendant failed to make an award in respect of the suit property. Hence the suit for the aforesaid directions.

(3.) THE defendants filed a written statement admitting the Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act issued in respect of the suit property. But the defendants deny the contention of the plaintiffs that the suit property belonged to the partners of the plaintiff Firm and thereafter, it was brought into the stock of the partnership Firm in the year 1972. The authorities, who took acquisition proceedings were guided only by the existing revenue records. The declaration of Notification under Section 6 of the Act was also issued by the 3rd Defendant on 1. 10. 1973. The records would show that the Pondicherry Planning Authority while issuing interim approval for the layout for residential plots in the suit properties, directed the party to carry out the developments by providing roads and parks. All the conditions stipulated in the interim approval were scrupulously carried out while the final approval of the layout was granted by the Pondicherry Planning Authority. Therefore, there was no necessity for the defendants to pass any Award in respect of the suit property and the question of payment of compensation also does not arise. With the aforesaid pleadings, the defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit.