Dismissed

Mrs.Tottaramudi Mahalakshmi, v. The District Collector

Madras HC15 Feb 2016WP/5515/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge High Court of Madras disposed of a writ petition filed under Article 226 seeking mandatory direction to the Deputy Collector to consider and decide the petitioner's representation for compensation on acquired private patta lands within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 14.12.2015 and pass orders within four weeks.

Mrs.Tottaramudi Mahalakshmi, Vs The District Collector — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 15.02.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶5

W.P.No.5515/2016 & WMP.No.4857/2016

¶6

Mrs.Tottaramudi Mahalakshmi

¶7

.. Petitioner

¶8

¶9

1.The District Collector, Government of Puducherry Revenue Complex, Saram Puducherry.

¶10

2.The Deputy Collector [Revenue], North Land Acquisition Officer, New Saram, Puducherry. .. Respondents

¶11

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1^st respondent to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 14.12.2015 at the earliest possible time.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.V.S.Kesavan For R1&R2 : Mr.A.S.Bharathi, GA [Puducherry] ORDER Heard Mr.V.S.Kesavan, learned counsel for the petitioner learned Mr.A.S.Bharathi, learned Government Advocate [Puducherry] accepting notice on behalf of the respondents and with their consent, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶13

2 The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking for a direction to the 1 st respondent to consider and dispose of her representation dated 14.12.2015. In the said representation, the petitioner has sought for adequate compensation for the lands acquired by the respondents from her. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that other land owners also approached this Court by filing writ petitions in WP.nos.36530 to 36536/2015 seeking for a larger relief and to determine the claim for apportionment u/s.30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. However, the petitioners therein conceded for a lesser relief before this Court and submitted that they would be satisfied if their respective

¶14

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

¶15

representations were considered. Accordingly, these writ petitions were disposed of by a common order dated 17.11.2015. In the instant case, the petitioner claims for compensation for the lands acquired and it is stated that the lands are her private patta lands.

¶16

3 Learned Government Advocate [Puducherry] for the respondents submitted that the 2 nd respondent will consider the representation of the petitioner within a period of four weeks.

¶17

4 Taking note of the submissions made , there will
be a direction to the 2 nd respondent to consider the petitioner's
representation dated 14.12.2015 on merits and in accordance with
law and pass orders within a period of four weeks from the date
of receipt of a copy of this order.
5 With the above direction the writ petition is
disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
AP
S/d-
Assistant Registrar(CS-V)
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
To
1. The District Collector,
Government of Puducherry Revenue
Complex, Saram Puducherry.
2. The Deputy Collector
[Revenue], North Land Acquisition
Officer, New Saram, Puducherry.
+ 1 cc to Govt.Pleader Puducherry SR 9559
+ 1 cc to Mr.V.S.Kesavan, Advocate SR 9454
msm(co)
prk23/2 WP.No.5515/2016

¶18

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

Mrs.Tottaramudi Mahalakshmi, v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs.Tottaramudi Mahalakshmi, 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

J.Sudhakar Vs The Coimbatore City Municipal

K.Palani Vs The Commissioner

U.C.Palanisamy, Vs The Superintending Engineer

Mr. G.Munusamy, Vs The Commissioner of

Mr.G.Kanakaraj Vs The Member Secretary

K.Kalaivani, Vs The Project Director