Allowed

M. Rajarathnam v. The District Collector

Madras HC5 Feb 2018WP/29599/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras allowed a writ petition, quashing the Land Acquisition Authority's order rejecting a reference request. Judging that the 60-day limitation period under the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001, runs from the date of communication of the award, the Court directed the respondents to refer the matter to the Civil Court within one month.

What did the court decide?

The petitioners prayer for quashing the impugned order and referring the matter to the Civil Court was allowed; respondents directed to refer the matter within one month.

M. Rajarathnam Vs The District Collector — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 05.02.2018

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE

¶5

W.P.No.29599 of 2017

¶6

M.Rajarathnam ... Petitioner Vs The District Collector, Land Acquisition Officer, Collectorate, Kancheepuram District. ... Respondent

¶7

Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the impugned order dated 29.07.2017 passed in Na.Ka.No.16832/2008/vg;1 and thereby direct the respondent to send the petitioner's appeal to the Competent Court to adjudicate the correct compensation.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.A.R.Nixon For Respondents : Mr.Akhil Akbar Ali Government Advocate O R D E R

¶9

The petitioner has approached this Court for issuance of writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to direct the Land Acquisition Authority to quash the proceedings of the respondent dated 29.07.2017 passed in Na.Ka.No.16832/2008/vg;1 and to refer the matter to the concerned Civil Court under Section 20(1) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001.

¶10

The allegation of the petitioner is that he is the owner of the property comprised in S.No.491/20 part to an extent of 00485 sq.meters, was acquired under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001, that an award was passed on 15.09.2011 without notice of the same given to the petitioner promptly, and based on the same, petitioner was paid Rs.23,70,436/-. The petitioner moved the authority under Section 20(1) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 for referring to the Civil Court with

¶11

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

¶12

his representation dated 23-12-2011. This was not done by the authorities. Since the authorities did not act promptly on his request for reference, the petitioner followed this with another representation dated 16.11.2016. Since this was also did not evoke any reaction from the authority, the petitioner moved this Court in W.P.No.6145 of 2017. On 17.04.2017, this Court allowed the said writ petition of the petitioner and directed the authority to consider his representation. On 29.07.2017, the respondent has rejected the request of the petitioner for reference on the ground that the reference was made well beyond 60 days. However, nowhere in the impugned order, it is stated that the petitioner was informed of passing of the award immediately after passing of the award.

¶13

Mr.Akhil Akbar Ali, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. No counter is filed.

¶14

The terminus quo for calculating the limitation period of 60 days provided for seeking reference to the Civil Court under Section 20(1) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act has to be reckoned only from the date of communication of the passing of the award, even though the statute does not spell it so in clear terms. This is insisted in Bhagwan Das and Ors Vs. State of U.P. & Others [AIR 2010 SC 1532]. If it were to be construed otherwise then it will give licence to every erring authority who fails in their duty to inform the owner of the land about passing of the award to refrain from referring the matter on the ground of limitation. This cannot be countenanced. The only point involved in this case is issuing notice of passing of the award to the petitioner promptly and it is not addressed in the impugned order.

¶15

This Court therefore, allows the petition and directs the respondents to refer the matter to the Civil Court concerned under Section 20(1) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Once it is so done, the Reference Court will treat it as if it is done within time and shall grant such statutory benefits that the petitioner might be entitled to if the Reference had been made in time. No costs.

¶16

-s/d-

¶17

Assistant Registrar(CS-IV)

¶18

True Copy

¶19

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶20

ssn

¶21

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

¶22

To The District Collector, Land Acquisition Officer, Collectorate, Kancheepuram District.

¶23

+2 Ccs to Mr.A.R. Nixon, Advocate sr 8353.

¶24

W.P.No.29599 of 2017
SP(09/03/2018)

¶25

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

M. Rajarathnam v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Rajarathnam 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.R.Thangaraj Vs The Government of Tamilnadu

S.Ilavarasu Vs The District Collector cum

Shanthakumar, Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

M.Murugesan, Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

P.Jayaraman, Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

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