Partly allowed

R.Mythili v. The Deputy Collector (L.a)

Madras HC21 Mar 2016WP/10330/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras, through a writ petition under Article 226, directed the 1st respondent to consider the petitioner's request for land compensation arising from the acquisition of land for public works and to pass appropriate orders on merits within ten weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 1st respondent to consider the petitioner's representation and pass appropriate orders on merits within ten weeks.

R.Mythili Vs The Deputy Collector (L.a) — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 21.03.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶5

W.P.Nos.10330 of 2016

¶6

R.Mythili ..Petitioner

¶7

Vs
1.The Deputy Collector (L.A)
Department of Revenue and
Disaster Management,
Puducherry
2. The Chief Engineer,
Public Works Department,
Puducherry,
3. The Superintending Engineer,
Circle-II, Public Engineering Works,
Puducherry,
4. The Executive Engineer,
Irrigation Division (Estate Officer),
Public Works Department,
Puducherry. ... Respondents

¶8

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to take due steps towards granting of compensation based on the representation's of the petitioner dated 17.09.2014.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Raveekumar For Respondents : Mr.A.Tamilvanan, Govt.Advocate ORDER

¶10

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.A.Tamilvanan, learned Government Advocate, who accepts notice for respondents.

¶11

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

¶12

2. The petitioner seeks for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to take due steps towards granting of compensation based on the representation's of the petitioner dated 17.09.2014.

¶13

3. The petitioner's request for grant of compensation was considered and the 4 th respondent by proceedings dated 10.2.2009 directed the petitioner to submit the relevant documents. According to the petitioner, he has submitted the relevant documents and the 4 th respondent by communication dated 18.5.2010 has requested the 1 st respondent to take action for fixation of compensation payable for the petitioner's lands, which have been utilised for formation of side drain and road in Shanmugapuram Vellavai from Vazhudavour road to Kanakaneri mouth in Puducherry. Insptie of the said communication, it appears that the 1 st respondent has not considered the petitioner's request and the petitioner has made several representations thereafter.

¶14

4. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submits that the 1 st respondent may be granted reasonable time to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law.

¶15

5. In the light of the above submission, there will be a direction to the 1 st respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 17.9.2014 take note of all the facts including the factual averments stated by the 4 th respondent in the communication dated 18.5.2010 and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of ten weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶16

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.

¶17

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶18

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

¶19

To:

¶20

1.The Deputy Collector (L.A)
Department of Revenue and Disaster Management,
Puducherry
2. The Chief Engineer,
Public Works Department,
Puducherry,
3. The Superintending Engineer,
Circle-II, Public Engineering Works,
Puducherry,
4. The Executive Engineer,
Irrigation Division (Estate Officer),
Public Works Department,
Puducherry.
+1cc to Mr.S. Raveekumar, Advocate, S.R.No.17917
AK(CO)
EU(04/04/2016)
WP.No.10330/2016

¶21

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

R.Mythili v. The Deputy Collector (L.a)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Mythili v. The Deputy Collector (L.a)

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

P.Preetha, Vs The State Commissioner for

M.Mani Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

G.Thangarasu Vs The District Collector

The Superintending Engineer, Vs M.Kanniapan, Forman Grade I

D.Selvakumar Vs the District Collector

D.Vijayalakshmi Vs The Chief Election Officer