Allowed

S.Ramgopal, v. The District Collector

Madras HC1 Feb 2018WP/16088/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras adjudicated a writ petition wherein the petitioner sought a directive to refer a compensation enhancement application to a Civil Court under the Tamil Nadu Highways Act. The Court found the application within the statutory time limit and ordered the Land Acquisition Officer to refer the matter. The petition was disposed with costs waived.

What did the court decide?

Directed the second respondent to refer the matter to the competent Court within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

S.Ramgopal, Vs The District Collector — Specific Performance | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 01.02.2018

¶3

CORAM: THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE

W.P.No.16088 of 2017

S.Ramgopal

-Vs-

1.The District Collector Vellore District Vellore.

¶8

2.The Land Acquisition Officer cum District Revenue Officer Vellore District, Vellore. ... Respondents

¶9

Prayer :- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to refer the application made by the petitioner dated 25.11.2016 to the competent Civil Court as mandated under Section 20(1) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 for effective adjudication of the application seeking for enhancement of compensation in respect of the Award No.2 of 2016 dated 30.09.2016, passed by the second respondent forthwith.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Vinodh Kumar For Respondents : Mr.Akhil Akbar Ali Government Advocate

¶11

The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that property of the petitioner in Survey No.271/2A1 and 271/2B1 of Melalathur Village, Gudiyatham Taluk, Vellore District was acquired for formation of a Vehicular Subway, that on 01.07.2013, possession of the land was taken and the property was fully utilized.

¶12

Subsequently, an award in No.2 of 2016 dated 30.09.2016 was passed by the second respondent. Aggrieved by the inadequacy of the compensation awarded, the petitioner has made a representation dated 25.11.2016 to the second respondent to refer the matter to the Court concerned. However, till date no reference has been made.

¶13

Mr. Akhil Akbar Ali, the learned Government Advocate takes https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ notice for the respondents. Heard both sides.

¶14

Section 20(1) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 reads as follows:

¶15

“20. Reference to Court. - (1) Any person aggrieved by the decision of the Collector, or the officer to whom the case was transferred, determining the amount may, within sixty days from the date of such decision, in so far as it affects him, by application to the Collector or the officer to whom the case was transferred, require that the matter be referred by him for the determination of the Court as defined in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act I of 1894), and when any such application is made, the provisions of Part III of the said Act shall mutatis mutandis apply to further proceedings in respect thereof.” 5. Prima facie the representation of the petitioner is within 60 days as stipulated in Section 20(1) of the Act. The second respondent is therefore directed to refer the matter to the Court concerned within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶16

With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Sd/Assistant Registrar /true copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar

¶17

ds To: 1.The District Collector Vellore District Vellore. 2.The Land Acquisition Officer cum District Revenue Officer Vellore District, Vellore. 1 cc to Mr.Vinodkumar, Advcate, Sr. 7940 1 cc to Government Pleader, Sr. 9737

¶18

W.P.No.16088 of 2017

¶19

kk 17/2 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

S.Ramgopal, v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Ramgopal, 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

Kirandevi, Vs The Competent Authority

Doss Vs The Collector

G.Angappan, Vs The District Collector

Rasappan Vs The District Collector

M.Annapoorani, Vs The District Collector

Venkataswamy Vs the District Collector