Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited, Rep. by its Secretary, Neyveli-607 801 v. Abdullah Rowthar & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATE: 03-09-2009CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDRENS.A.No.643 of 1994 and Cross Objection No.83 of 1999S.A.No.643 of 1994:Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited, Rep. by its Secretary, Neyveli-607 801... Appellant in the Appeal and 1st respondent in the Cross objection (3rd Defendant)Versus1.Abdullah Rowthar2.State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by District Collector, South Arcot-Vallalar District, at Cuddalore. 3. The Special Tahsildar, No.15, Land Acquisition (L.P.)Neyveli-2, South Arcot-Vallalar District .. Respondents in the Appeal and 2nd respondent and Cross Objectors in the Cross objection (Plaintiff and Defendants 1 and 2)Prayer: Appeal against the judgment and decree, dated 24.8.1993, madein A.S.No.143 of 1991, on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Virudhachalam, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 22.4.1991,made in O.S.No.1363 of 1982, on the file of the District Munsif, Virudhachalam. For Appellant in the Appeal and for the 1st respondent in the Cross objection: Mr.N.NithyanandamFor Respondents in the Appeal and 2nd respondent and Cross Objectors : Mr.R.Subramanian (R1)in the Cross objection Mr.R.Muthaian (R2 & R3) Government Advocate https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ COMMON ORDERThe second appeal, in S.A.No.643 of 1994, has been filed againstthe judgment and decree, dated 24.8.1993, made in A.S.No.143 of 1991,on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Virudhachalam, confirming thejudgment and decree, dated 22.4.1991, made in O.S.No.1363 of 1982, onthe file of the District Munsif, Virudhachalam.

The third defendant in the suit, in O.S.No.1363 of 1982, isthe appellant in the present second appeal. The plaintiff in the suit, who is the first respondent in the present second appeal, inS.A.No.643 of 1994, had filed the suit for the reliefs of declarationof title, for recovery of possession and for permanent injunctionagainst the defendants therein.

Based on the evidence available, the trial Court had declaredthe title of the plaintiff in the suit property and had also directedthe defendants in the suit to calculate and grant the compensation tothe plaintiff, in respect of the suit land. However, the trial Courthad declined to grant the relief of recovery of possession, permanentinjunction and the other reliefs prayed for by the plaintiff, by itsjudgment and decree, dated 22.4.1991, made in O.S.No.1363 of 1982.

Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court, dated22.4.1991, the Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited, the thirddefendant in the suit, had filed an appeal on the file of the Subordinate Court, Virudhachalam, in A.S.No.143 of 1991. Similarly, the State of Tamil Nadu and the Special Tahsildar, the defendants 1and 2, respectively, in the suit, in O.S.No.1363 of 1982, had alsofiled an appeal before the Subordinate Court, Virudhachalam, inA.S.100 of 1991. The first Appellate Court, by a common judgment anddecree, dated 24.8.1993, had confirmed the judgment and decree of thetrial Court, dated 22.4.1991, made in O.S.No.1363 of 1982.

Thereafter, Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited, the thirddefendant in the suit and the appellant in the first Appeal, inA.S.No.143 of 1991, had filed the present second appeal before this Court, in S.A.No.643 of 1994, to set aside the judgment and decree ofthe first Appellate Court, dated 24.8.1993, made in A.S.No.143 of1991. However, the State of Tamil Nadu and the Special Tahsildar, theappellants in A.S.No.100 of 1991, had not filed any second appeal. Instead they had chosen to file a Cross Objection in the secondappeal, in S.A.No.643 of 1994, preferred by Neyveli LigniteCorporation Limited. The Cross Objection filed by the State of TamilNadu and the Special Tahsildar has been numbered, as Cross ObjectionNo.83 of 1999.

At this stage of the hearing of the second appeal, it has beenbrought to the notice of this Court that there may not be a necessityfor this Court to decide the second appeal, on its merits, in view ofthe fact that Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited, the appellant in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the second appeal, in S.A.No.643 of 1994 and the first respondent inthe said appeal, who was the plaintiff in the suit, in O.S.No.1363 of1982, had agreed to settle the matter, amicably, before the LokAdalat, which has been recorded as follows: "Though the case was adjourned so many times, thedefendants 1 and 2 are not in a position to settle thematter. But the plaintiff and the third defendant agreed tosettle the matter on the following terms. The plaintiff is entitled, in view of thedecree passed by the lower court, the amount asfixed by the Supreme Court reported in JT 1999(9)SC 524. Both the parties agreed that the landacquired are irrigated dry lands and the SupremeCourt has fixed the amount of compensation payableto the land owners at Rs.82,000/- per acre. Theparties have also agreed that the plaintiff isentitled to interest from the date of judgment ofthe Supreme Court till the date of payment @ 10½%.2. Though the third defendant and the plaintiff agreedfor the above terms, the other defendants are not agreeingfor the settlement. Hence, the matter is posted before the Court for further orders. "

Mr.N.Nithyanandam, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited and Mr.R.Subramanian, the learnedcounsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent, in the secondappeal, had submitted that the Cross Objection, in Cross ObjectionNo.83 of 1999, filed by the second and third respondent, in the secondappeal, in S.A.No.643 of 1994, is not maintainable.

The learned counsels had submitted that even though divergentviews were prevailing, with regard to the maintainability of suchcross objections being filed by the parties, who are the respondentsin the second appeals, it has been submitted that the matter has beensettled, finally, in the judgment of a Full Bench of this Court, reported in Venkateswarlu V. Ramamma (1950 (I) MLJ 54) and thedecision rendered by the Supreme Court, in Panna Lal V. State of Bombaand others (AIR 1963 SC 1516).

It has been further stated that the second and the thirdrespondents, namely, the State of Tamilnadu and the Special Tahsildar, have no conflict of interests, with the appellant in the presentsecond appeal, namely, Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited andtherefore, the cross objection filed by them is not maintainable inlaw.

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant andthe learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second and thirdrespondents in the second appeal had not refuted the submissions madeby the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent. In https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ such circumstances, the cross objection, in Cross Objection No.83 of1999, is held as not maintainable, in view of the decisions citedsupra. Hence, it stands dismissed.

In view of the dismissal of the cross objection and in viewof the fact that the plaintiff in the suit, in O.S.No.1363 of 1982,and the third defendant therein, who are the first respondent and theappellant in the present second appeal, respectively, had agreed tosettle the matter on the following terms: "The plaintiff is entitled, in view of the decreepassed by the lower court, the amount as fixed by the Supreme Court reported in JT 1999(9) SC 524. Both theparties agreed that the land acquired are irrigated drylands and the Supreme Court has fixed the amount ofcompensation payable to the land owners at Rs.82,000/- peracre. The parties have also agreed that the plaintiff isentitled to interest from the date of judgment of the Supreme Court till the date of payment @ 10 ½%."Accordingly, the second appeal is decreed on such terms as notedabove. No costs. cshSd/-Asst. Registrar//True Copy//Sub Asst. RegistrarTo1. The Subordinate Judge, Virudhachalam2.The District Munsif, Virudhachalam. 3. The Record Keeper, VR Section, High Court, Madras.+ 1 cc to Mr. N.A.K.Sarma, Advocate SR No.44784+ 1 cc to the Spl Government Pleader (CS) SR No.44466S.A.No.643 of 1994 and Cross Objection No.83 of 1999JRG(CO)SR/14.12.2009