Allowed

Rane Brake Lining Limited, v. The Special Tahsildar

Madras HC26 Mar 2015WP/32185/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Petitioner challenged an order passed by the Special Tahsildar fixing compensation for land acquired for highway construction. The Court set aside the order, holding the Special Tahsildar was not the competent authority under the National Highways Act, and remanded the matter to the Special District Revenue Officer for fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; matter remanded to second respondent for fresh consideration within three months; writ petition allowed.

Rane Brake Lining Limited, Vs The Special Tahsildar — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 26.03.2015

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE Hon'ble Mr.JUSTICE M. DURAISWAMY

¶5

W.P.No.32185 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2014

¶6

Rane Brake Lining Limited, represented by Deputy General Manager – TQM & OHS Mr.S. Rajendra Kumar, having its registered Office at "Maithri" No.132, Cathedral Road, Chennai – 600 086 .... Petitioner vs 1. The Special Tahsildar ( Land Acquisition), National Highways – 5, Taluk Office Second Floor, Poonamallee, Chennai-56

¶7

The Special District Revenue Officer (Land Acquisition), National Highways Kancheepuram and Thiruvallur District, Second Floor, Taluk Office Premises, Poonamallee, Chennai – 56

¶8

The Union of India, Department of Road Transport and Highways, Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport and Highways represented by its Secretary, 5^th floor, Transport Bhawan, 1, Parliament Street, New Delhi, Delhi – 110 001 ... Respondents

¶9

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the impugned Order Re.135/2006/A/NH/TVR, dated 11.02.2014 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same as illegal and unconstitutional and consequently direct the second respondent or any other competent authority to determine and pay compensation to the petitioner for 2300 square metres of land in survey number 95/2A and 800 square metres of land in survey number 95/2C in Athipattu village acquired by the third respondent under the National Highways Act 1956 for the construction and maintenance management and operation of Chennai Byepass Phase II, connecting National Highway No.4 and National Highway No.5.

¶10

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

¶11

For petitioner : Mr.Ramakrishnan Viraraghavan For R.1 & R.2 : Mr.V. Subbiah Spl.Govt. Pleader

¶12

For R.3 : Mr.C.V. Ramachandramoorthy

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The petitioner has filed the above writ petition to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the impugned Order Re.135/2006/A/NH/TVR, dated 11.02.2014 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same as illegal and unconstitutional and consequently direct the second respondent or any other competent authority to determine and pay compensation to the petitioner for 2300 square metres of land in survey number 95/2A and 800 square metres of land in survey number 95/2C in Athipattu village acquired by the third respondent under the National Highways Act 1956 for the construction and maintenance management and operation of Chennai Byepass Phase II, connecting National Highway No.4 and National Highway No.5.

¶15

The main contentionn raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the first respondent is not the competent authority under Sec.3(a) of the National Highways Act to determine and pay compensation for the land acquired under Sec.3G of the National Highways Act, therefore, the impugned order, passed by the first respondent, is liable to be set aside.

¶16

The respondents 1 and 2 filed their counter, wherein, they have stated that the second respondent is the competent authority to determine the compensation under Sec.3(a) of the Natinal Highways Act. However, the respondents 1 and 2 have also stated that the Tamil Nadu Urban land Ceiling and Regulation Act 1999 permit the innocent buyers to restore the lands acquired under earliest act after getting orders from the Government. Further, they have stated tht the petitioner has not got any order from the Government so far.

¶17

In the counter, they have also stated that the petitioner had filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.32025 of 2005 to quash the acquisition under Tamil Nadu Urban Land Ceiling Act 1978 and the writ petition was allowed by this Court on 18.4.2011. Since the respondents themselves have stated that it is only the second respondent, who is the competent authority to determine the compensation under National Highways Act, the impugned order, passed by the first respondent, in Re.135/2006/A/NH/TVR, dated 11.02.2014 is liable to be set aside and accordingly, the same is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the second respondent for fresh consideratioin and the second respondent shall decide the matter, on merits and in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner's authorised representative, within a

¶18

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

¶19

period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 5. With the above observation, the writ petitioin is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected MP is closed.

¶20

Sd/Asst.Registrar (CO)

¶21

/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
sr
To
1. The Special Tahsildar ( Land Acquisition),
National Highways – 5, Taluk Office
Second Floor, Poonamallee, Chennai-56
2. The Special District Revenue Officer
(Land Acquisition), National Highways
Kancheepuram and Thiruvallur District,
Second Floor, Taluk Office Premises,
Poonamallee, Chennai – 56
3. The Union of India, Department of Road
Transport and Highways, Ministry of
Shipping, Road Transport and Highways
represented by its Secretary, 5 th floor,
Transport Bhawan, 1, Parliament Street,
New Delhi, Delhi – 110 001
1 cc to Mr. Ramakrishnan Viraraghavan, Advocate, Sr. 17172
1 cc to Government Pleader, Sr. 17322
W.P.No.32185/2014
GJ (CO)
kk 7/4

¶22

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

Rane Brake Lining Limited, v. The Special Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rane Brake Lining Limited, v. The Special Tahsildar

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

Rana Bahadhur Vs the Commissioner

The Management, Vs Thavasimuthu

Sathiya Vs the Government of Tamilnadu

Tmt.R.Saraswathi Vs The Superintending Engineer

Thiruvengadam, Vs The Secretary to Government

S.Arumuga Nainar Vs The Assistant Engineer