Dismissed

K.Buvaneswari, W/o.Late v. The Principal Secretary to

Madras HC12 Jun 2017WP/38501/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Supreme Court dismissed a writ petition seeking a direction to the Collector to consider a representation regarding land acquisition. The Court held that the petitioner's claim was effectively a title dispute, which previously bar this Court from adjudicating, and was an impermissible re-litigation of a matter decided or left open in earlier proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition stands dismissed, giving liberty to the petitioner to work out the remedy before the appropriate forum.

K.Buvaneswari, W/o.Late Vs The Principal Secretary to — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 12.06.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH

¶5

W.P.No.38501 of 2016 and W.M.P.No.32973 of 2016

¶6

K.Bhuvaneswari Rep. by her General Power of Attorney K.Gajalakshmi ... Petitioner Vs. 1. The Principal Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Highways and Minor Ports (HW2) Department, Fort St.George, Chennai 600009. 2. The District Collector, Kancheepuram, Kancheepuram District. 3. The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition). Inner Ring Road Plan, Chrompet, Chennai 600 044. 4. Meenakshi 5. Narmatha 6. Senthil Kumar ...Respondents

¶7

Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 2^nd Respondent to consider the representation dated 22.07.2013 made by the Petitioner herein.

¶8

For Petitioner : Ms.K.Gajalakshmi, in Person. For Respondents : Mr.R.A.S.Senthilvel, Addl. Govt. Pleader for R1 to R3 Mrs.Vijayakumari Natarajan for R4 to R6

¶9

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

¶10

ORDER

¶11

The petitioner, claiming title to the property, which has been included in the acquisition proceedings, has come forward with this writ petition, seeking a direction to the second respondent to consider her representation dated 22.07.2013.

¶12

This is a second round of litigation. On the earlier litigation filed at the instance of the contesting private respondents, the petitioner filed an application to implead in M.P.No.1 of 2015. The writ petition in W.P.No.22664 of 2014 was filed for a direction pass the award. By the order dated 27.11.2015, this Court, while rejecting the impleading petition filed by the petitioner, directed the third respondent therein to conclude the proceedings after due opportunity. The following paragraphs would be relevant:

¶13

4. In the interrugnum, an impleading petition has been filed by one K.Gajalakshmi, D/o.(Late) K.M.Kamalakannan stating that her mother's brother is Alagesan. He died leaving behind four legal heirs viz., (i)Kullammal (ii)Meenakshi (iii)Narmadha (iv) Senthil Kumar. One of the legal heir Kullammal, died in the year 2002 and hence her daughter, son and predeceased son's wife, daughter and son become the legal heirs of the deceased Kullammal. With these facts, the said Gajalakshmi, who is appearing in person seeks to implead in the Writ Petition. In my view, the question of impleading the said Gajalakshmi does not arise, since this Court is not adjudicating the title of the property. Hence M.P.No.1 of 2015 is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioner in M.P.No.1 of 2015 in W.P.No.22664 of 2014 to work out her remedy before the appropriate forum in the manner known to law.

¶14

5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is also disposed of, directing the third respondent to conclude the proceedings pursuant to the notice dated 29.11.2013, after considering the petitioners' written submissions and after notice to the petitioners' and also others who are likely to be affected and affording an opportunity of personal hearing. The above directions shall be complied with within a period of eight weeks. No costs.

¶15

Thereafter, the award has been passed on 30.04.2017, which does not include the name of the petitioner, who is now represented by the power agent, who appears in person.

¶16

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

¶17

What the petitioner seeks to adjudicate is a title dispute. According to the petitioner, the partition deed entered into in the year 1985, though registered, is not genuine. As rightly held by this Court on the earlier occasion in W.P.No.22664 of 2014 dated 27.11.2015, the remedy of the petitioner lies elsewhere. This is a re-litigation. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed, giving liberty to the petitioner to workout the remedy before the appropriate forum, if so advised. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶18

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CO)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
mmi
To
1. The Principal Secretary
Government of Tamilnadu,
Highways and Minor Ports (HW2) Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai 600009.
2. The District Collector,
Kancheepuram,
Kancheepuram District.
3. The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition).
Inner Ring Road Plan,
Chrompet,
Chennai 600 044.
+1cc to Ms.K.Gajalakshmi,Party in Person, S.R.No.41975
+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.42126
+1cc to Mr.S.Natarajan, Advocate in sr.no.41471(03/07/2017)

¶19

W.P.No.38501 of 2016 EV(CO) CS/19/06/17

¶20

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

K.Buvaneswari, W/o.Late v. The Principal Secretary to

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Buvaneswari, W/o.Late v. The Principal Secretary to

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

The Management Vs The Appellate Authority

The Management, M/s.Asian Vs The Presiding Officer

The Management of Vs The Presiding Officer

Workmen of M/s.Ashahi India Vs Government of Tamil Nadu

Mrs.Vasanthalakshmi Vs The Assistant Commissioner

United Labour Federation, Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu