Allowed

M. Arumugam v. The State of Tamil nadu

Madras HC6 Feb 2018WP/2537/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a writ petition filed by landowners challenging the unauthorized sale of their wet agricultural land by an Industrial Estate. The Court directed the respondents to consider the petitioners' representations for land return under the 2013 Act within eight weeks and allowed the petition on that basis.

What did the court decide?

The respondents are directed to consider the petitioners' representations on merits within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order.

M. Arumugam Vs The State of Tamil nadu — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated : 06.02.2018

¶3

Coram: The Honourable Mr. Justice N. SESHASAYEE

¶4

W.P.No.2537 of 2018

¶5

M. Arumugam

¶6

M. Jayakumar

¶7

K. Saraswathy

¶8

Tmt. Dhanalakshmi

¶9

Tmt. M. Bhanumathi

¶10

...Petitioners

¶11

Versus

¶12

The State of Tamilnadu,

¶13

Rep. by its Secretary,

¶14

Micro Small & Medium Enterprises Department,

¶15

Fort St. George,

¶16

Chennai – 600 009.

¶17

The Additional Chief Secretary Commissioner Director, Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises,

¶18

SIDCO Head Office Building,

¶19

Thiru. Vi. Ka. Industrial Estate,

¶20

Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. ...Respondents

¶21

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to re-convey the lands of the petitioners measuring 40 cents in Survey No.98/4, at Reddiyur Village, Salem Taluk, Salem District, by considering and passing orders on the Representation of the petitioners dated 22.05.2017.

¶22

For Petitioners : Mr. K. Selvaraj For Respondents : Mr. M. Karthikeyan,

¶23

Additional Government Pleader

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

The petitioners have averred in this petition that their father originally owned a piece of land measuring 40 cents in Survey No.98/4 and 14 cents in Survey No.99/9 situated in Reddiyur Village, Salem Taluk, Salem District and that the said properties were acquired by the respondent for the purposes of establishing an Industrial Estate of SIDCO. The Notification under Section 4(1) was issued on 01.03.1961 followed by a declaration under Sec.6 on 02.01.1963.

¶26

An award has since been passed and the matter was referred

¶27

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

¶28

to the Sub Court under Section 18 and the Reference Court too has disposed of the matter. While so, the Government has passed G.O.Ms.No.2078, Revenue Department, dated 27.04.1984 which provides that wet agricultural lands of small farmers shall not be acquired.

¶29

Be that as it may, contrary to the proceedings of the second respondent, the Industrial Estate has illegally and unauthorizedly sold the lands measuring 38, 923 Sq.Ft (0.89.27 Acres) comprised in Survey No.98/1 for a consideration of Rs.8,17,635/- in favour of Sri Santhanalakshmi Spinning Mills Vide its order dated 10.05.1994. While as per the allotment order, the said plot will be used for production of waste cotton yarn, now it is purported to be used for the purpose of putting up an Oxidation Plant. In the meantime, petitioners' father died and that the petitioners became the owners of the said piece of wet land. Petitioners have therefore, preferred the representation dated 22.05.2017 to the first respondent, followed by another representation dated 08.07.2017 to the second respondent requesting the authorities to return the land under Section 101 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, which is corresponding to Section 48-B of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The grievance expressed by the petitioners is that the said representation dated 22.05.2017 has not been considered by any of the authorities.

¶30

Mr.M.Karthikeyan, the learned Additional Government Pleader entered appearance for both the respondents. By consent, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal.

¶31

Since the prayer of the petitioners is for considering their representation by the authorities, this Court directs the respondents to consider the representations of the petitioners dated 22.05.2017 on merits and in accordance with law within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶32

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed as per the said direction. No costs.

¶33

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS II)

¶34

//True copy//

¶35

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶36

mrr

¶37

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

¶38

¶39

The Secretary, Micro Small & Medium Enterprises Department,

¶40

Fort St. George,

¶41

Chennai – 600 009.

¶42

The Additional Chief Secretary Commissioner Director,

¶43

Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises,

¶44

SIDCO Head Office Building,

¶45

Thiru. Vi. Ka. Industrial Estate,

¶46

Guindy,

¶47

Chennai – 600 032.

¶48

+1cc to Mr.K.Selvaraj, Advocate SR.No.8796
+1cc to Government Pleader SR.No.12515
W.P.No.2537 of 2018
VGI(CO)
GN(22/03/2018)

¶49

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

M. Arumugam v. The State of Tamil nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Arumugam v. The State of Tamil nadu

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

M.Murugesan, Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

M. Rajarathnam Vs The District Collector

P.Jayaraman, Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

M/s Sundaram Finance Ltd. Vs The Deputy Collector (Revenue)

Shanmugam Vs the District Collector

A. Shanmugam Vs The State of Tamil nadu