Partly allowed

C.Rosaiah, v. The District Collector

Madras HC7 Dec 2015WP/22301/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order admits the writ petition in a land acquisition dispute. The court directed the special tahsildar to consider the petitioner's representations regarding compensation under the 2013 Act and issue notices to the intervenor within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the second respondent to consider petitioner's representations on merits and issue notices to the petitioner and the Tamil Nadu Road Development Company Limited within eight weeks.

C.Rosaiah, Vs The District Collector — Public Procurement and Tenders | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 07.12.2015

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶5

W.P.No.22301 of 2014 &

¶6

M.P.No.1 of 2014

¶7

C.Rosaiah [ PETITIONER ]

¶8

Vs 1 The District Collector Thiruvallur District Collectorate, Thiruvallur.

¶9

2 The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) cum Land Acquisition Officer Unit-IV Outer Ring Road Scheme (ORR) Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority Koyambedu , Ch-600 092.

¶10

3 Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority Rep. by its Member Secretary Thalamuthu Natarajan Building Egmore, Chennai-600 008. [ RESPONDENTS ]

¶11

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the second respondent to re-fix the compensation by considering all relevant factors as raised by the petitioner in respect of his properties by initiating fresh proceedings under the provisions of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Re-Settlement Act 2013 (Central act No.30/2013) and to pay the same to the petitioner within a reasonable time to be fixed by this Court, by considering the petitioner representations dated 13.1.2014 and 17.5.2014.

¶12

For Petitioner .. Mr.R.Krishnaswamy For Respondents .. Mr.R.Vijayakumar - R1 Addl.Govt.Pleader

¶13

Mr.Raja Srinivas - R2 & R3

¶14

For Tamil Nadu Road Mr.Sivavarthanan Development Company Limited.

¶15

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

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

With the consent of the learned counsel on either side, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

¶18

2. Heard Mr.R.Krishnaswamy, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.R.Vijayakumar, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent and Mr.Raja Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 & 3.

¶19

3.The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition, to d irect the second respondent to re-fix the compensation for the lands acquired, by taking into consideration the provisions of Central Act No.30/2013, based on his representations dated 13.1.2014 and 17.5.2014.

¶20

4.The learned counsel appearing for respondents submits that sufficient time may be granted to the second respondent to consider the representation in accordance with law.

¶21

5.The Tamil Nadu Road Development Company Limited seeks to intervene in the matter by stating that they are a proper and necessary party to the Writ Petition, since any claim for enhanced compensation cannot be considered without notice to them.

¶22

6.However, for such purpose, there will not be any necessity to for them to be impleaded and it is sufficient if they are heard before any order is passed by the second respondent on the petitioner's representations.

¶23

7.In the light of the above, the second respondent is directed to consider the petitioner's representations dated 13.1.2014 and 17.5.2014, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after issuing notice to the petitioner and Tamil Nadu Road Development Company Limited, Chennai. It is open to the petitioner to produce all relevant records in support of his claim at the time of personal hearing.

¶24

The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶25

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CO)

¶26

//True Copy//

¶27

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶28

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

¶29

rpa

¶30

To
1 The District Collector
Thiruvallur District
Collectorate, Thiruvallur.
2 The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition)
cum Land Acquisition Officer
Unit-IV Outer Ring Road Scheme (ORR)
Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority
Koyambedu , Ch-600 092.
3 Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority
Rep. by its Member Secretary
Thalamuthu Natarajan Building
Egmore, Chennai-600 008.
4. The Tamil Nadu Road Development Company Limited,
Chennai.
+1cc to Mr.V. Ajoy, Advocate, S.R.No.65680
+1cc to Mr.K. Raja Shrinivas, Advocate, S.R.No.65639
+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.65703
+1cc to Mr.Sivavarthanan, Advocate SR.65596
CTK(CO)
EU(14/12/2015)
W.P.No. 22301 of 2014

¶31

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

C.Rosaiah, v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Rosaiah, v. The District Collector

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

Poochi Vs The District Collector

S.Ravichandran, Vs The Director

Food Corporation of India Vs The Deputy Director

Shri Lakshmi Spinners Ltd. Vs Govt of Tn. Rep by Its

Tamilnadu Tourism Development Vs the Commissioner of Labour

The Bombay Burmah Trading Vs Tamil Nadu Electricity Board