Dismissed

M.Veerasamy, v. Union of India

Madras HC4 Apr 2017WP/7121/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, whose land was acquired, filed a writ seeking a mandamus directing respondents to consider his representation regarding payment of interest on enhanced compensation. The court held that the issue is within the jurisdiction of the compensation awarding court and cannot be adjudicated via a writ.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner's request to consider representation on payment of interest on enhanced compensation was rejected as the remedy lies with the jurisdictional court.

M.Veerasamy, Vs Union of India — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 04.04.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH

¶5

WRIT PETITION No. 7121 of 2017 and W.M.P.No. 7720 of 2017

¶6

M.Veerasamy ...Petitioner Vs.

¶7

Union of India, Union Territory of Puducherry, Rep by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Chief Secretariat Buildings, Puducherry.

¶8

The Revenue Officer cum Land Acquisition Officer, Central University Land Acquisition Wing, Puducherry ...Respondents

¶9

Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ or order or direction in the nature of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider and pass appropriate orders on his representation dated 20.01.2017 with regard to the payment of interest on the compensation amount payable to him by the respondents in the Land Acquisition Proceedings in L.A.O.P.No. 05 of 2005 dated 19.01.2016 on the file of the Learned II Additional District Judge's Court at Puducherry.

¶10

This Writ Petition has been filed for a direction to the respondents to consider and pass appropriate orders on the representation of the petitioner dated 20.01.2017 with regard to the payment of interest on the compensation amount payable to him by the respondents in the Land Acquisition Proceedings in L.A.O.P.No. 05 of 2005 dated 19.01.2016 on the file of the Learned II Additional District Judge's Court at Puducherry.

¶11

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

¶12

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶13

The petitioner whose land was acquired and compensation was paid and received by him, made a representation on 20.01.2017 inter-alia alleging that he is entitled for interest on enhanced compensation. It appears that in pursuant to the orders passed by this Court and as well as by the Execution Court compensation has been paid in favour of the petitioner. Now the grievance of the petitioner is that the interest on enhanced compensation has not been paid.

¶14

This Court is afraid that the said issue cannot be adjudicated in this writ petition, though a simple prayer is sought for. Both the petitioner and the respondents are parties before the jurisdictional court. Now this claim is based upon the award passed. Therefore, the remedy open to the petitioner is only to approach the jurisdictional Court and not seeking relief by way of a writ of mandamus to the respondents.

¶15

5.In view of the same, this writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.

¶16

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS VIII)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
arr/maya
To
1. The Secretary,
Union of India,
Union Territory of Puducherry,

¶17

Revenue Department,

¶18

Chief Secretariat Buildings, Puducherry.

¶19

The Revenue Officer cum

¶20

Land Acquisition Officer, Central University Land Acquisition Wing, Puducherry +1cc to Mr.S.Subramanian, Advocate Sr.20392 +1cc to the Government Pleader, Puducherry, Sr.20107

¶21

W.P.No. 7121 of 2017 and W.M.P.No. 7720 of 2017 tm[co] srg 12/4/2017

¶22

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

M.Veerasamy, v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Veerasamy, v. Union of India

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

Desia Pudhu Thozhilalar Vs Government of Tamil Nadu

M.v.Raajah, Vs The Commissioner cum Estate

P.Purushothaman, Vs The Commissioner

Janaki Joseph, W/o.Joseph, Vs The Corporation of Chennai

Miss.Devi, Vs The District Collector

Mrs.Suguna, Vs The District Collector