Allowed

Seetha v. the Special Thasildar

Madras HC11 Sept 2014WP(MD)/13208/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court was approached by a petitioner seeking a writ of Mandamus to direct the Special Tahsildar to deposit acquisition compensation money fixed by a court order. The court directed the respondent to comply with the earlier order within three months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the first respondent to comply with the order passed by the fourth respondent and implement the directions contained therein within three months.

Seetha Vs the Special Thasildar — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 11.09.2014

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶6

W.P(MD)No.13208 of 2014

¶7

Seetha ...Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravida Welfare Unit I Madurai District.

¶10

2.The District Adi Dravidar and Tribes, Welfare Department

¶11

Madurai Distric, Madurai.

¶12

3.The District Revenue Officer, Madurai District, Madurai. 4.The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai.

¶13

5.The Secretary Adi Dravidar & Tribal Welfare Department Fort St. George, Chennai. ...Respondents

¶14

Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the 1^st respondent to deposit the amount before the Fast Track Court No.I, Madurai, mentioned in the proceedings of the 4^th respondent in his Na.Ka.No.89258/2010/Athi7 dated .12.2010 with interest and solatium.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Gandhiraj For respondents : Mr.D.Muruganantham Addl. Government Pleader

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The petitioner seeks for issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the 1^st respondent to deposit the amount before the Fast Track Court No.I, Madurai, mentioned in the proceedings of the 4^th respondent in his Na.Ka.No.89258/2010/Athi7 dated .12.2010 with interest and solatium.

¶18

The petitioner owns punja lands in Survey 1246/4A2 measuring an extent of 31.5 Hectare, which was acquired by the first respondent to provide free house site patta to the landless Scheduled Caste persons as per the Tamil Nadu Act 31/1978. However, the value for the acquired land has been fixed as Rs.290/- per cent. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached the Additional Sub Court, in LAOP No.127 of 1999. By order dated 26.09.2005, the Sub Court, Madurai, enhanced the compensation amount from Rs.290/- to Rs.2000/- per cent with interest and solatium. However, the said amount has not been disbursed to the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner. It is further stated by the petitioner that even after filing Execution Petition in EP No.4 of 2010, the respondents has not disbursed the said amount. It is her grievance that as far as the other

¶19

¶20

land owners, the award amount has already been deposited. Hence, the petitioner preferred representations to the 4^th respondent, who in turn, forwarded the same to the 5^th respondent for necessary action. However, so far, no action has been taken and hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶21

Though the matter was adjourned on three occasions to enable the

¶22

respondents to appear before this Court and give instructions to the learned Additional Government Pleader, the respondents are not turned up. As on date, the order in No.11/97-98, dated 28.01.1998, which has been referred to by the petitioner has not been shown to be either modified, annulled or cancelled. In such circumstances, the respondent, namely the first respondent is bound to comply with the order and direction issued by the 4^th respondent.

¶23

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to

¶24

the first respondent to comply with the order passed by the 4^th respondent in Na.Ka.No.89258/2010/Athi7, dated .12.2010, and strictly implement the directions contained therein, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶25

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.

¶26

Sd/Assistant Registrar(AE) /True copy/

¶27

Sub Assistant Registrar To

¶28

1.The Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravida Welfare Unit I Madurai District.

¶29

2.The District Adi Dravidar and Tribes, Welfare Department Madurai Distric, Madurai. 3.The District Revenue Officer, Madurai District, Madurai. 4.The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai. 5.The Secretary Adi Dravidar & Tribal Welfare Department Fort St. George, Chennai. +1CC to the Special Government Pleader in SR.51556 W.P(MD)No.13208 of 2014 11.09.2014 rr. PBK 24/09/2014 ::2P-7C:

¶30

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

Seetha v. the Special Thasildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Seetha v. the Special Thasildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A. Ponnusamy, Vs the Registrar

M.Balamurugan Vs the Home Secretary

M.I.E.T. Engineering College, Vs Director of Twon and Country

G. Chandran, Vs the District Collector

Cpr Kabaddi Academy Vs Sports Development Authority

V.A. Zakir Hussain Vs the Tamil Nadu State Election