Disposed

G.Palani v. The Secretary to Government

Madras HC6 Dec 2018WP/32257/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought a direction to pay interest on land acquisition compensation under Section 12 of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Lands for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997. Without adjudicating merits, the Court directed the District Collector to pass suitable orders within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directing the 4th respondent to consider the petitioner's representation and pass suitable orders on merits within six weeks. No costs.

G.Palani Vs The Secretary to Government — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 06.12.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN

¶5

W.P. 32257 of 2018

¶6

G.Palani ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs
1. The Secretary to Government,
Industrial Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai-600 009.
2. The Secretary to Government,
Finance Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai-600 009.
3. The Managing Director,
SIPCOT, Egmore,
Chennai-600 008.
4. The District Collector,
Kancheepuram District.
5. The Special Tahsildar (L.A.),
SIPCOT, Unit-II,
Sriperumbudur Expansion Scheme-II,
Sriperumbudur, Kancheepuram. ... Respondents

¶8

PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue appropriate Writs, orders or Directions and in particular issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to disburse the interest for the amount of compensation awarded from the date of acquisition of the petitioner's land as per section 12 of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Lands for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 (Act No.10 of 1999).

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Saravanabhavan For Respondents : Mr.C.Thirumaran, Special Government Pleader for R1, R2, R4 & R5

¶10

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

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

This writ petition has been filed seeking for a direction to the respondents to pay interest for the amount of compensation awarded to the petitioner under Sec.12 of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Lands for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 (hereinafter called as 'Act').

¶13

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner's lands are sought to be acquired for forming a SIPCOT at Sriperumbudur, subsequently, compensation was also awarded to the petitioner. While awarding compensation, the respondents did not pay interest as per Sec. 12 of the Act. Hence, he has sent the representation to the respondents on 03.10.2018. But, so far, no order has been passed. Hence, the present Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner.

¶14

Considering the limited prayer sought in the Writ Petition, without going into the merits of the case, the 4^th respondent is directed to consider the petitioner's representation and pass suitable orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. In the result, the present Writ Petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs.

¶15

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-VIII) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar

¶16

rpp

¶17

¶18

The Secretary to Government, Industrial Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.

¶19

The Secretary to Government, Finance Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.

¶20

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

¶21

The Managing Director, SIPCOT, Egmore, Chennai-600 008.

¶22

The District Collector, Kancheepuram District.

¶23

The Special Tahsildar (L.A.), SIPCOT, Unit-II, Sriperumbudur Expansion Scheme-II, Sriperumbudur, Kancheepuram.

¶24

+1 cc to Mr.G.Saravanabhavan, Advocate, S.R.No.84892
+1 cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.84421
W.P. 32257 of 2018
VSN-II(CO)
SSM(31/01/2019)

¶25

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

G.Palani v. The Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Palani v. The Secretary to Government

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/s. Hotel New grants Vs The Commissioner

P.G.Sambantham Vs the Commissioner

P.Sureshbabu Vs The INspector of Police

S.Kaviarasan Bharathy, Vs The District Elementary

K.suresh Vs The Project Director

M.Subramani Vs The joint Registrar