Disposed

Syed Meera v. the State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC5 Aug 2014WP(MD)/11122/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court directed the Special Tasildhar to consider the petitioner's representation regarding land acquisition compensation on merits within eight weeks, after being informed that compensation was deposited in a revenue account. The writ petition was disposed of upon issuance of this direction.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the third respondent to consider the petitioner's representation on merits within eight weeks.

Syed Meera Vs the State of Tamilnadu — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 05.08.2014

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶6

Writ Petition (MD)No.11122 of 2014

SYED MEERA

... Petitioner

Vs.

1 THE STATE OF TAMILNADU REP BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF SCHEDULE CASTE AND SCHEDULE TRIBE, FORT ST. GEORGE, CHENNAI 600 009. 2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, RAMNAD DISTRICT, RAMNAD. 3 THE SPECIAL TASILDHAR, ADHIDRAVIDAR WELFARE , MUDUKULATHUR, RAMNAD DISTRICT. ... Respondents

¶11

Prayer:- Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to pay the compensation amount for the survey No.657/1 measuring 1 acre 40 cents of Kamudi Village, Ramnad District as per the order in L.A.C.M.A.No.60 of 2000, dated 06.12.2001 at the rate of Rs.980/- per cent together with interest and solatium.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.A.S.Mujibur Rahman

¶13

For Respondents : Mr.K.Guru Additional Government Pleader

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The petitioner seeks for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to pay the compensation amount for the survey No.657/1 measuring 1 acre 40 cents of Kamudi Village, Ramnad District as per the order in L.A.C.M.A.No.60 of 2000, dated 06.12.2001 at the rate of Rs.980/- per cent together with interest and solatium.

¶16

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶17

The petitioner would state that though his lands have been acquired regarding in the year 2000 and the award was passed by the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ neighbouring land owners by awarding a sum of Rs.980/- per cent, till date the petitioner has not been paid any compensation for the lands

¶18

¶19

which have been acquired. Further, it is stated that the award was passed on 05.03.1991. With these facts, the petitioner has submitted a representation. Since the said representation is pending, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶20

It is submitted that said Tahsildar by proceedings, dated 30.04.2014 has informed the petitioner that compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer has been deposited in a revenue deposit.

¶21

Accordingly, there will be a direction to the third respondent to consider the petitioner's representation on merits and in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, by taking note of the compensation paid in respect of the neighbouring land owners.

¶22

With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶23

Sd/-

¶24

Assistant Registrar (Records)

¶25

/True copy/

¶26

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶27

¶28

1 THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF SCHEDULE CASTE AND SCHEDULE TRIBE,

¶29

FORT ST. GEORGE, CHENNAI 600 009.

¶30

2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,

¶31

RAMNAD DISTRICT, RAMNAD.

¶32

3 THE SPECIAL TASILDHAR, ADHIDRAVIDAR WELFARE , MUDUKULATHUR, RAMNAD DISTRICT.

¶33

+1cc to MR.A.S.MUJIBUR RAHMAN, ADVOCATE IN SR : 43496

¶34

¶35

SR : 13.08.2014 : 2p/5c

¶36

W.P(MD)No.11122 of 2014 05.08.2014

¶37

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Syed Meera v. the State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syed Meera v. the State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R. Mathi, Vs the District Collector

S.Kumar Vs the District Manager

S. Perumal Ramesh, Vs the Tirunelveli City Municipal

M.P. Rathinasamy Nadar, Vs the District Collector

Sundaram, Vs the Superintendent Engineer

K. Indumathi, Vs the District Collector