Disposed

Mrs.Rasambal v. the State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC12 Jan 2017WP/14315/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that compensation must be paid to an assignee of government land even if not the original owner, applying a prior judgment and a specific Government Order directing respondents to pass orders on merits.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to pass appropriate orders within three months in terms of G.O. Ms. No.190 (05.06.1998) and the order in W.P. Nos.8110 and 14085 of 2009.

Mrs.Rasambal Vs the State of Tamilnadu — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 12.01.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH

¶5

Writ Petition No.14315 of 2003 and W.P.M.P. No.17917 of 2003

¶6

Rasambal .. Petitioner Versus 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 2.The Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition-I, Neyveli-2. 3.The Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition-I, Neyveli-2. .. Respondents

¶7

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay compensation for the lands in R.S. No.103/8, Patta No.282, an extent of 1 acre at Veppankurichi Village, Old Neyveli, Vridhachalam Taluk, Cuddalore District.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Sethuvarayar For Respondents: Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan, Special Government Pleader

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

This writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to pay compensation for the lands in R.S. No.103/8, Patta No.282 measuring to an extent of 1 acre at Veppankurichi Village, Old Neyveli, Vridhachalam Taluk, Cuddalore District.

¶11

2.The case of the petitioner is that her husband was given conditional assignment of lands by the Government way back in the year 1991 in the above said Survey Number. Subsequently, the lands were acquired by the Government for the purposes of

¶12

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

¶13

expansion of Neyveli Lignite Corporation without payment of compensation to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court for a mandamus to the Government to pay her the necessary compensation under the Land Acquisition Act.

¶14

3.The respondents had filed their counter contesting the claim by contending that husband of the petitioner was not the owner of the land, but, he was conditionally assigned the land by the Government and a condition is that he should surrender the land as and when the same is required for expansion of Neyveli Lignite Corporation.

¶15

4.Learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court that the issue was decided by a learned Single Judge in R.Ganagasabai vs. The District Collector and others in W.P. Nos.8110 and 14085 of 2009 dated 28.11.2011 in which this Court has rejected the plea taken by the Government and has directed the Government to pay the compensation in terms of G.O. Ms. No.190, Industries (MIA-II) Department dated 05.06.1998.

¶16

5.In the considered opinion of this Court, the order passed in the aforesaid Writ Petition would equally apply to the petitioner also.

¶17

6.It is settled that when the Government seeks to acquire the land that was assigned to persons, yet compensation should be given to the assignee and they cannot be left high and dry.

¶18

7.In view of the above, this petition is disposed of with the following directions: “The respondents shall pass appropriate orders in terms of G.O. Ms. No.190, Industries (MIA-II) Department dated 05.06.1998 and the order passed by this Court in W.P. Nos.8110 and 14085 of 2009, dated 28.11.2011 on the claim made by the petitioner, on merits, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”

¶19

No costs. Consequently, connected W.P.M.P. is closed.

Sd/-

Assistant Registrar

//True Copy//

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶24

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

¶25

vga
To
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
rep. by Secretary to Government,
Revenue Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Deputy Collector,
Land Acquisition-I,
Neyveli-2.
3.The Special Tahsildar,
Land Acquisition-I,
Neyveli-2.
+1cc to Mr.R. Sethuvarayar, Advocate, S.R.No.3201
+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.3396
pa(CO)
md(09/02/2017)
Writ Petition No.14315 of 2003

¶26

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

Mrs.Rasambal v. the State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs.Rasambal v. the State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.Ch.Rama Rao Vs the Union of India

The Management of Tamil Nadu Vs the Presiding Officer

M/S.Y.J.Enterprises, Rep by Vs the Commsnr of Customs

Lalitha Publicities, Rep by Vs the Collector of Chennai

Thiru a.M.Velu Mudaliar Vs the Transport Commissioner

Pandyan Grama Bank Rep by Vs Presiding Officer Industrial