Disposed

S.Vijayakumar v. The District Collector

Madras HC22 Mar 2016WP/10563/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ of mandamus under Article 226 directing respondents to consider his representation dated 07.03.2016 for enhanced land compensation. Without adjudicating merits, court directed respondents to decide within eight weeks. Petition dismissed, no costs.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 1st respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 07.03.2016 and pass orders on merits within eight weeks.

S.Vijayakumar Vs The District Collector — Public Procurement and Tenders | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATE: 22.03.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶5

W.P.No.10563 of 2016

¶6

S.Vijayakumar .. Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

The District Collector, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram.

¶9

Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Oragadam Industrial Park Road, Sriperumpudur .. Respondents

¶10

Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a writ of mandamus, to direct the respondents to consider his representation dated 07.03.2016.

¶11

For Respondents : Mr.J.Balagopal

¶12

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

¶13

The petitioner has filed this writ petition to issue a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to consider his representation dated 07.03.2016, wherein he has claimed enhanced compensation for his lands, which are acquired under the Tamilnadu Highways Act, 2001.

¶14

The petitioner is not satisfied with the amount of compensation, which has been determined and therefore, he has made representation to the 1st respondent seeking enhancement. Since, the said representation is pending, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶15

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

¶16

The learned Additional Government Pleader, accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, on instructions submitted that reasonable time may be given to the 1st respondent to consider the petitioner's representation on merits and in accordance with law.

¶17

In the light of the above, without going into the merits of the claim made by the petitioner, there will be a direction to the 1st respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 07.03.2016 and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶18

-s/d-
Assistant Registrar
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
ars
To
1. The District Collector,
Kancheepuram District,
Kancheepuram.
2. Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition),
Oragadam Industrial Park Road,
Sriperumpudur
+1 cc to Mr.D.S.Ramesh Advocate sr.18193
+1 cc to Government Pleader sr.18407
W.P.No.10563 of 2016
aa30/03/2016

¶19

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

S.Vijayakumar v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Vijayakumar 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

D.Vijayalakshmi Vs The Chief Election Officer

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

S.Rangaraj, M/a 52 Yrs Vs The Principal Secretary to

Mr.R.Arjunan, Vs The Inspector of Panchayat/

O.Gunalan, Vs The President

M/s.Sri Vari Alloys India (P) Vs The Chairman and Managing