Dismissed

Good Shepherd Convent v. The Secretary

Madras HC4 Dec 2018WP/31858/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged remarks by Chennai Metro Rail Limited regarding objections to land acquisition. The Court dismissed the challenge to the requisitioning body's remarks but directed the Acquisition Officer to conduct further enquiry.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; direction to 3rd respondent to conduct further enquiry and submit report to Government; possession of petitioner not to be disturbed.

Good Shepherd Convent Vs The Secretary — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 04.12.2018 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN W.P. 31858 of 2018 and W.M.P.s 37098 & 37101 of 2018

¶2

Good Shepherd Convent (Represented by its Secretary), 32, College Road, Chennai-600 031. ... Petitioner Vs. 1. The Secretary, Planning, Development and Special Initiatives Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 2. The Chennai Metro Rail Limited, (represented by its Chairman), Administrative Office, Chennai Metro Rail Limited, Poonamallee High Road, Koyambedu, Chennai-600 107. 3. The Land Acquisition Officer (RDO), Egmore Revenue Division, Chennai-600 003. 4. The Estate Officer/Deputy Collector, Chennai Metro Rail Limited, Poonamallee High Road, Koyambedu, Chennai-600 107.

¶3

The Sub-Collector and Land Acquisition Officer, Central Revenue Division, Chennai-600 101. ... Respondents

¶4

PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the letter dated 12.11.2018 in R.C.No.278/LND/CMRL/2018, on the file of 4^th respondent and the consequential communication dated 16.11.2018 in R.C.No.LA/CMRL/3511/2018, on the file of the 5^th respondent in

¶5

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

¶6

respect of the land of the petitioner proposed for acquisition, to an extent of 3590 sq.mts. in Survey No.102/1, Block No.18 in the Nungambakkam Village, Egmore Taluk, Chennai District, relating to Corridor -3-17- Sterling Road Junction Metro Station, by the respondents and quash the same.

¶7

For Petitioner : Dr.Father Xavier Arul Raj, Senior Advocate for M/s.Father Xavier Associates

¶8

For Respondents : Mr.C.Thirumaran,

¶9

Special Government Pleader for R1, R3 & R5

¶10

Mr.Jayesh B.Dolia for R2 & R4 O R D E R

¶11

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the reply given by the requisitioning body viz., Chennai Metro Rail Limited for the objection submitted by the petitioner in an enquiry under Sec.3(3) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of lands for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 (hereinafter called as 'Act').

¶12

In the earlier Writ Petition filed by the petitioner in W.P. No. 21969 of 2018, this Court had passed the following order :-

¶13

“Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and on considering the fact that, the objection filed by the petitioner school is pending with the 3^rd respondent and the other facts and circumstances of the case, without going into the merits and demerits of the case, this Court directs the 3^rd respondent to give a personal hearing to the petitioner on 01.10.2018 and the petitioner is directed to appear before the 3^rd respondent on that date and raise all his objection with supporting materials, if any. The 3^rd respondent is further directed to consider the objections of the petitioner and thereafter pass appropriate orders on the same before issuing a notification under Sec.3(1) of the Act. Until such final orders are passed as directed above, the respondents are restraining from issuing any notification under Sec.3(1) of the Act.”

¶14

Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, an enquiry has been conducted by the 3^rd respondent Acquisition Officer, and the objections raised by the petitioner has been sent to the 4^th respondent requisitioning body. Now, the 4^th respondent has sent a reply for the objections raised by the petitioner, that was under challenge in the present Writ Petition.

¶15

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

¶16

It is only a remarks given by the requisitioning body for the objections given by the petitioner. Based on the remarks sent by the requisitioning body, the 3^rd respondent should conduct further enquiry and submit a report to the Government, enabling them to pass orders. Hence, the Writ Petitioner cannot challenge the above remarks sent by the requisitioning body for the objections submitted by the petitioner.

¶17

In the said circumstances, there is no merit in the Writ Petition and it is liable to be dismissed. However, the 3^rd respondent is directed to conduct further enquiry on the objections as well as the remarks submitted by the 4^th respondent, and submit the report to the Government enabling the Government to pass orders under Sec.3(3) of the Act. Till the order passed by the Government, and the Notification issued under Sec.3(1) of the Act, the possession of the petitioner should not be disturbed.

¶18

In the result, the present Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected Writ Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶19

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS IV)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
rpp
To
1. The Secretary,
Planning, Development and
Special Initiatives Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai-600 009.
2. The Chennai Metro Rail Limited,
(represented by its Chairman),
Administrative Office,
Chennai Metro Rail Limited,
Poonamallee High Road, Koyambedu,
Chennai-600 107.

¶20

The Land Acquisition Officer (RDO), Egmore Revenue Division, Chennai-600 003.

¶21

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

¶22

The Estate Officer/Deputy Collector, Chennai Metro Rail Limited, Poonamallee High Road, Koyambedu, Chennai-600 107.

¶23

The Sub-Collector and Land Acquisition Officer, Central Revenue Division, Chennai-600 101.

¶24

+1cc to The Government Pleader sr.no.84024
+1cc to M/s.Father Xavier Associates, Advocate sr.no.85413
W.P. 31858 of 2018
and
W.M.P.s 37098 & 37101
of 2018
ssd(co)
nr 06/02/2019

¶25

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

Good Shepherd Convent v. The Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Good Shepherd Convent v. The Secretary

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

Bay Resorts Ltd, Vs the Tahsildhar

N.C.Vijayakumar Vs the Government of Tamilnadu

St.Antonys Church, Vs the Inspector of Police

R.Kennedy, Vs the Secretary to Government

P.Kumaran Vs The Chairman

K.Sundararasu Vs The State of Tamil Nadu