The Court held that disputed questions of fact regarding land acquisition and entitlement to compensation cannot be determined in a writ petition under Article 226. The petitioners were directed to approach the civil court for adjudication. Writ petitions were closed. No costs.
Writ petitions stood closed; no costs awarded.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.04.2017
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH
WRIT PETITION Nos. 41057 & 41058 of 2016
R.Asaithambi ...Petitioner in W.P.No.41057 of 2016 R.Pandian Thambidurai ...Petitioner in W.P.No.41058 of 2016
Vs.
Common Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction to call for the records in proceedings in Ka.No.359/2015/Ei.Ni.Vu/dated 08.01.2016 and Ka.No.358/2015/Ei.Ni.Vu/dated 08.01.2016 respectively passed by the second respondent and to quash the same as illegal, incompetent and direct the respondent to handover possession of the petitioner's patta and with compensation for damages or otherwise, further direction to the second respondent to initiate acquisition proceedings inaccordance with law, if required and to pay fair compensation to the petitioner for his lands acquired for expansion of Highways.
For Petitioners : Mr.PA.Sudesh Kumar For Respondents : Mr.S.Diwakar-for R1&R2, learned Special Government Pleader. COMMON ORDER
Heard Mr.PA.Sudesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.S.Diwakar, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
2.The petitioners have come forward to challenge the impugned orders, which have been passed on the representations of the petitioners to the effect that the request made therein cannot be considered as the lands stated to have been acquired have not been acquired and thus, there was no proceedings against it. Resultantly, it has been stated in the impugned orders that in view of the said stand, there is no question of considering the request for compensation.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the respondents have acquired the lands.
4.This Court is afraid that it is a disputed question of fact which cannot be dealt with by this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which is a discretionary remedy. Therefore, the only option left to the petitioner is to approach the jurisdictional civil Court and seek an adjudication.
Sd/-
Asst.Registrar
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
To
1. The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu,
Highways Department,
RK(CO) VR(18/04/2017)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether disputed issue of fact regarding land acquisition can be adjudicated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Whether the petitioners' claim for compensation and handover of possession can be entertained in a writ petition when acquisition status is disputed.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
R.Asaithambi
R.Pandian Thambidurai
The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Highways Department
The Assistant Divisional Engineer, (Highways), Construction & Maintenance, Tiruppattur, Vellore District
M.M.Sundresh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
