Disposed

R. Sivaraman v. the Secretary Department

Madras HC4 Dec 2014WP(MD)/19617/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court disposed of a writ petition for possession of land. The Court acknowledged a prior quashing of Section 6 declaration but noted the Authorities had failed to generate fresh declarations or consider the petitioner's representations for over 30 years.

What did the court decide?

Direction to second and fourth respondents to consider petitioner's representations from 1998 to 2004 and pass a reasoned order within six weeks. Writ petition disposed.

R. Sivaraman Vs the Secretary Department — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 04.12.2014

¶3

CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL

¶4

W.P(MD)No.19617 of 2014

¶5

R.Sivaraman ... Petitioner

¶6

Vs.

¶7

The Secretary, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Fort St. George,

¶8

Chennai 600 009.

¶9

The Managing Director, TNHB,Anna Salai,Nandhanam,

¶10

Chennai-35.

¶11

The District Collector,

¶12

Madurai District,

¶13

Madurai.

¶14

The Executive Engineer,

¶15

Madurai Housing Unit,

¶16

Tamil Nadu Housing Board,

¶17

Madurai-10.

¶18

The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Ellis Nagar Scheme, Madurai. ... Respondents

¶19

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents authorities to deliver possession of the properties measuring 5.5 cents in Plot No.19 in S.No.6/1B7 Ponmani Village, Madurai District, forthwith without encroachment.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Ramasamy

¶21

For R1,3 & R5 : Mr.K.Mahesh Raja

¶22

Government Advocate

¶23

For R2 & R4 : Mr.S.Nagarajan

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

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

¶26

According to the petitioner, he is the absolute owner of the property measuring 5.5 cents in Survey No.6/1B7, Ponmani Village, Madurai District. The said property and other properties were sought to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ be acquired by the fifth respondent in favour of the second respondent. Accordingly, the second respondent issued Section 4(1) Notification under the Land Acquisition Act, as early as on 07.02.1979 and later

¶27

¶28

issued Section 6 declaration. When that be the factual situation, the land owners filed W.P.Nos.8053 and 8055 of 1982 seeking to quash the Section 6 declaration and through the final order dated 07.04.1983, this Court was pleased to quash the Section 6 declaration. The stand taken on behalf of the petitioner is that neither the fifth respondent nor the second respondent had chosen to issue fresh declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act and has not proceeded further in the matter for 31 years. As such, the petitioner has addressed the representations on 18.12.2013, 06.01.2004, 17.06.1994 and the representation made by him on 11.04.1998 to the concerned authorities and all proved futile. Hence, he has filed the present writ petition.

¶29

In view of the fact that the petitioner has a genuine, reasonable and legitimate grounds and that his various representations addressed to authorities from 11.04.1998 till the representation made on 06.01.2004 were not considered by the concerned authorities, this Court, based on equity, fair play, good conscience and even as a matter of prudence, directs the second and fourth respondents to look into the representations of the petitioner so made beginning from 11.04.1998 till 06.01.2004 and to pass a reasoned order on merits within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order (ofcourse after providing due opportunity to the petitioner and others concerned if any, by adhering to the principles of natural justice).

¶30

To facilitate the early disposal of his representations aforesaid, the petitioner is directed to submit/enclose a fresh copy of the representations already made by him and the concerned authorities shall receive the same and to pass orders within the time determined by this Court.

¶31

With the aforesaid directions, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

Assistant Registrar(CO)

¶34

/TRUE COPY/

¶35

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶36

¶37

The Secretary,

¶38

Department of Housing and Urban Development,

¶39

Fort St. George,Chennai 600 009.

¶40

The Managing Director,Tamilnadu Housing Board, Anna Salai, Nandhanam, Chennai-35.

¶41

The District Collector,Madurai District, Madurai.

¶42

The Executive Engineer, Madurai Housing Unit, Tamil Nadu Housing Board,Madurai-10.

¶43

The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Ellis Nagar Scheme,Madurai.

¶44

+1cc to Mr.R.Ramasamy,Advocate, SR.No.65667

¶45

+1cc to Special Govt.Pleader SR.No.65327

¶46

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

¶47

W.P(MD)No.19617 of 2014 04.12.2014

¶48

akv

¶49

PA/05.01.15/2P/8C

R. Sivaraman v. the Secretary Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R. Sivaraman v. the Secretary Department

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

Selvi, Vs the District Collector

C.Ramesh Kumar Vs the District Registrar of

K. Sekar, Vs the President

Ganesan Vs the Superintendent of Police

V.Subramanian, Vs the Commissioner

Elilarasu Vs the District Collector