Disposed

N.Thangaraju, v. The Chief Manager

Madras HC14 Jun 2016WP/11495/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court directed the District Collector (4th Respondent) to determine compensation for land utilized for power installation and right of way, referencing Government of India guidelines. It vacated a prior status quo order and fixed eight weeks for the Collector to decide on merits after the petitioner files the claim. Non-compliance mandates appearance before the court.

What did the court decide?

The District Collector is directed to consider the compensation application for land used for power installation and right of way and pass an order on merits within eight weeks.

N.Thangaraju, Vs The Chief Manager — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

WP Nos.11495 to 11501 of 2016

¶3

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

¶4

The writ petitions are posted under the caption 'For Reporting

¶5

Compliance' and the writ petitions are disposed of on 14.06.2016, wherein

¶6

in paragraphs 6 to 9, it has been observed as under:-

¶7

“6. Taking into account, the guidelines issued by

¶8

the Government of the India, by order dated 15.10.2015, extracted above and in the light of the orders passed by this Court in W.P. No. 7685 of 2016, the petitioner is permitted to submit his statement of claim before the 4th respondent within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order along with all the relevant documents. On such claim statement being filed, the 4th respondent shall issue notice to the 1st and 2nd respondents within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the claim statement from the petitioner. After getting reply from the 1st and 2nd respondents, the 4th respondent shall decide about the compensation payable to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a period of 4 weeks thereafter. After the determination of the compensation amount, the

¶9

1/5

¶10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶11

¶12

same shall be paid to the petitioner by the 1st and 2nd respondents within a period of two weeks thereafter.

¶13

7. The writ petition is disposed of on the above lines. No costs. Since the order of the 4th respondent granting permission to erect transmission towers in the petitioner's lands has been sustained, the interim order of status quo granted by this Court stands vacated and W.M.P. is closed.

¶14

8. Post the writ petition for reporting compliance on 19th August, 2016.

¶15

9. In case, the 4th respondent, fails to comply with the order passed by this Court or the 1st and 2nd respondents fail to pay the compensation within the time schedule fixed by this Court, then the authority/authorities, at default, shall appear before this Court on 19th August, 2016.”

¶16

2. While passing the final orders, this Court considered the guidelines issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Power dated 15.10.2015. With reference to the above guidelines, the respondents were directed to consider the case of the writ petitioners for grant of compensation.

¶17

2/5

¶18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶19

¶20

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners made a submission that the compensation was determined by the Authorities and was paid in respect of the Trees and Crops. However, the Authorities have not considered the portion of the land occupied by the Power Grid Corporation of India for installation of power and therefore, the petitioners are prejudiced on the right of way.

¶21

4. Since these aspects were not considered for determining the compensation to be paid, the learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated that the District Collector has to consider the same in the light of the orders

¶22

passed by the Government of India, which is applicable to the case of the petitioners and referred in the final order passed by this Court in WP No.11495 of 2016 dated 14.06.2016.

¶23

5. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioners have

¶24

already submitted an application to the District Collector-fourth respondent for the purpose of grant of compensation.

¶25

3/5

¶26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

¶28

6. This being the factum, the fourth respondent is directed to

¶29

consider the application submitted by the writ petitioners for grant of compensation in respect of the land area utilised for installation of power and right of way and accordingly, passed orders on merits and in accordance with law and by affording an opportunity to all the parties, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶30

7. In view of the fact that the other issues were already considered

¶31

and final orders are passed by this Court, no further consideration is required.

13-04-2023

Svn

4/5

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶36

¶37

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

¶38

Svn

¶39

WPs 11495 to 11501 of 2016

¶40

13-04-2023

¶41

5/5

¶42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

N.Thangaraju, v. The Chief Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Thangaraju, v. The Chief Manager

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

Chennai Mutton Merchant Vs State of Tamil Nadu

M/S.Bonfiglioli Transmissions Vs the Inspector of Police

O.L.Kannan, Vs The District Collector

Arcot Textile Mill Ltd. Vs T.N.E.B

K.Duraisamy Vs the Superintending Engineer

Govaan Steel (P) Ltd., Vs The Chairman