Allowed

Mr. D.David, v. the District Collector

Madras HC6 Dec 2018WP(MD)/21366/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the omission of a bore-well from land acquisition compensation under the National Highways Act, 1956. The Madurai Bench directed the District Revenue Officer to pass a supplementary award including the bore-well value within six weeks. The Writ Petition was allowed.

What did the court decide?

The second respondent (District Revenue Officer CA(LA)) is directed to pass a supplementary award including compensation for the bore-well within six weeks.

Mr. D.David, Vs the District Collector — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 06.12.2018 CORAM

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶4

W.P.(MD)No.21366 of 2018

¶5

D.David ... Petitioner

¶6

Vs.

¶7

The District Collector, Dindigul, Dindigul District.

¶8

The District Revenue Officer CA(LA), Dindigul, Dindigul District.

¶9

The Special Tahsildar(Land Acquisition), National Highway No.45 Extension, Dindigul, Dindigul District.

¶10

The Project Director & DGM(T), National Highways Authority of India, National Highway No.45 extension,

¶11

Door No.6, First Floor,

¶12

3^rd Main Road, Ponnagar,

¶13

Trichy, Trichy District. ... Respondents

¶14

PRAYER : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to pay compensation to the value of bore-well situated at acquired property in Survey No.91/2C1, Thamaraipadi Village, Dindigul East Taluk, Dindigul District, on the basis of the letter sent by the third respondent vide Na.Ka.No.460/08/A4/N.H.45 dated 14.11.2017.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Mahalingam For R-1 to R-3 : Mr.M.Rajarajan, Government Advocate.

¶16

For R-4 : Mr.C.Arul Vadivel @ Sekar

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The petitioner's lands were acquired under THE NATIONAL HIGHWAYS ACT, 1956 and compensation was also paid. These petitions date back to the year 2009. But then, when determining the compensation, the authority failed to take into account the borewell installed in Survey No.91/2C1, Thamaraipadi Village. The petitioner wrote to the authorities in this regard. Thereupon the matter was taken up and there was a regular exchange of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ correspondence among the authorities.

¶19

¶20

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner drew my

¶21

attention to the memorandum dated 14.11.2017 issued by the Special Tahsildar. It appears therefrom that the existence of the bore-well in the acquired land is not in dispute and that it was omitted to be included in the award.

¶22

Therefore, the second respondent is directed to pass a

¶23

supplementary award within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶24

The Writ petition stands allowed, accordingly. No costs.

¶25

Sd/-

¶26

Assistant Registrar(CS-II)

¶27

/True Copy/

¶28

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS-I)

¶29

¶30

The District Collector, Dindigul, Dindigul District.

¶31

The District Revenue Officer CA(LA), Dindigul, Dindigul District.

¶32

The Special Tahsildar(Land Acquisition), National Highway No.45 Extension, Dindigul, Dindigul District.

¶33

+1CC to Mr.S.Mahalingam, Advocate, SR.No.99195

¶34

+1CC to Mr.C.Arul Vadivel @ Sekar, Advocate, SR.No.99020

¶35

+1CC to the Special Government Pleader SR.No.99261

¶36

W.P.(MD)No.21366 of 2018

¶37

06.12.2018

¶38

PMU

¶39

ES/SKN/RSK/SAR 1/07.12.2018/2P/7C

¶40

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

Mr. D.David, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. D.David, 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.Renganathan Vs the District Revenue Officer

P.Kannan, Vs the Regional Transport Officer

V.Leela Vs the President

S.Veeranasamy Vs the Secretary to Government

V.Ramanathan, Vs the District Revenue Officer

N.K.Veeranan@Chellaiah, Vs the Tenancy Rights Record