Disposed

H.Rejibunnisa Beevi, v. the Authorised Officer

Madras HC23 Aug 2018WP(MD)/18310/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition seeks a mandamus directing the land acquisition authority to consider the petitioner's representation regarding compensation for acquired land. The court directed the authorities to consider the representation and pass appropriate orders within four weeks without adjudicating merits.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to consider petitioner's representation and pass appropriate orders within four weeks.

H.Rejibunnisa Beevi, Vs the Authorised Officer — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 23.08.2018

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU

¶6

W.P(MD).No.18310 of 2018

¶7

H.Rejibunnisa Beevi ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The Authorised Officer, District Revenue Officer(Land Acquisition), National Highways No.45-C, (Vikravandi-Kumbakonam, Thanjavur Division), No.12, Tamizh Nagar, Vilamal, Thiruvarur.

¶10

1. The District Collector, Thiruvarur, Office of District Collector, Thiruvarur.

¶11

1. The District Collector, Thanjavur, Office of District Collector, Thanjavur.

¶12

M.Muktharunisa

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

PRAYER: Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1^st respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 21.07.2018 and consequently to pay the entire compensation to the petitioner pertaining to R.S.No.73/4F u/ed;bra; (kid) extent 501 sq.mts, under Na.Ka.1041 of 2011 m-nj/be/vz; /-45rp now Plot No.6, 7 and 8 in R.S.No.73/4F Vilanthakandam, Sholapuram Village, Kumbakonam Taluk, Thanjavur District within stipulated time.

¶15

For petitioner : Mr.M.V.Santharaman

¶16

For RR 1 to 3 : Mr.A.Thiyagarajan, Government Advocate

¶17

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

¶18

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for a Mandamus, to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 21.07.2018 and consequently, to pay the entire compensation to the petitioner.

¶21

The case of the petitioner is that Plot Nos.6, 7 and 8 in R.S.No.73/4F Vilanthakandam, Sholapuram Village, Kumbakonam Taluk, Thanjavur District were approved by the Directorate of Town Planning under approval No.289 of 1999 dated 06.09.1999. According to the petitioner, the approved plots were sold by one Muktharunisa/ 4^th respondent, W/o Mohamad Batsha, residing at No.4, Ramanuja Road, Sholapuram Village, Kumbakonam Taluk, Tanjavur District, under a registered sale deed dated 04.06.2001 in document No.178 of 2001 Thiruppanandal Sub Registry, Kumbakonam Registration District to the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner became the absolute owner, by virtue of the sale deed received from the fourth respondent.

¶22

The petitioner would state that after the sale, the Patta has been transferred to the petitioner's name by an order dated 25.02.2002 in tho.mu.pa.ma.2/700/2002/2003.

¶23

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the first respondent has issued a notice dated 12.05.2017 for acquisition of lands, where, the petitioner has raised her objection on 28.09.2012. Thereafter, by notice dated 03.01.2013, lands were acquired by the first respondent and compensation for the lands acquired were received by the owners of the respective lands. Though sale has been completed, and patta was also transferred in the name of the petitioner, the compensation for the acquired petitioner's land has been received by the fourth respondent.

¶24

In this regard, the petitioner gave a detailed representation to the respondents on 21.07.2018 but there has been no progress till date. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would state that, if the representation of the petitioner is directed to be considered by the respondents on merits and an order to that effect is directed to be passed within a time frame, the petitioner would be satisfied.

¶25

Heard Mr.M.V.Santharaman, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.A.Thiyagarajan,learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

¶26

Considering the limited relief sought for by the petitioner, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, directs the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 21.07.2018 and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law. The said exercise shall be completed by the respondents

¶27

¶28

within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶29

This Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶30

Sd/

¶31

Assistant Registrar(RTI)

¶32

/True copy/

¶33

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS-II)

¶34

¶35

The Authorised Officer,

¶36

District Revenue Officer(Land Acquisition), National Highways No.45-C, (Vikravandi-Kumbakonam, Thanjavur Division), No.12, Tamizh Nagar, Vilamal, Thiruvarur.

¶37

The District Collector, Thiruvarur, Office of District Collector, Thiruvarur.

¶38

The District Collector, Thanjavur, Office of District Collector, Thanjavur.

¶39

+1cc to Mr.T.R.SUBRAMANIAN, Advocate, SR.No. 79578

¶40

W.P(MD).No.18310 of 2018

¶41

23.08.2018

¶42

STS

¶43

KK/RP/SAR-2/01.10.2018/3P-5C

¶44

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

H.Rejibunnisa Beevi, v. the Authorised Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

H.Rejibunnisa Beevi, v. the Authorised Officer

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

H.Sunil, S/O. Harris, Vs the Regional Transport Officer

W.Vijaya Shobin, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

The Inspector of Police, Vs Senthil Murugan @ Senthil

Tvl.Sri.Venkkatachalapathy Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Mr. M. Narasimma Bharati Vs the Special District Revenue

T.Jayaraj, Vs the Regional Transport