Dismissed

K.Densing, v. the Secretary to Government

Madras HC30 Oct 2018WP(MD)/21742/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition alleging unlawful land acquisition, the petitioners claimed lands were acquired without due process. The respondent submitted the lands were not yet subject to acquisition and any future acquisition would follow due process, basing the petition on mere apprehension.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; petitioner to work out remedy in manner known to law if grievance persists.

K.Densing, Vs the Secretary to Government — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 30.10.2018

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.21742 of 2018 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.19659 & 19660 of 2018

¶7

K.Densing .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The Secretary to Government, Department of Revenue, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai – 9.

¶8

2.The Commissioner, Rehabilitation and Resettlement for Land Acquisition, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai.

¶9

3.The District Collector, Collectorate, Tirunelveli District. 4.The District Revenue Officer, O/o. The District Revenue Officer, Collectorate, Tirunelveli District.

¶10

5.The Superintendent of Police, O/o. The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District.

¶11

6.The Tahsildar, Alangulam Taluk Office, Tirunelveli District. .. Respondents

¶12

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents Nos.1 to 3 to restore the petitioner's land in an extent of 28 cents in Survey Nos.418/2, 418/3 and including the Patta Land in Survey Nos.418/2A, 418/2B, 418/3A and 418/3B, situated at Pethanadar Patti, Alangulam Taluk, Tirunelveli District or to provide alternative land or to provide adequate compensation in an extent of 28 cents to the petitioner for the unlawful land https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ acquisition of the petitioner's land acquired by the third respondent within a stipulated time limit.

¶13

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.I.Pinaygash For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiyagarajan, Government Advocate

¶15

ORDER

¶16

Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

¶17

The grievance of the petitioner appears to be the authorities, without following the due process of law, has unlawfully acquired his lands in Survey Nos.418/2, 418/3, including the patta land in Survey Nos.418/2A, 418/2B, 418/3A and 418/3B, situated at Pethanadar Patti, Alangulam Taluk, Tirunelveli District and therefore, he has filed the present writ petition seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to restore his lands or to provide alternative lands or to provide adequate compensation.

¶18

Mr.A.Thiyagarajan, learned Government Advocate, who took notice on behalf of the respondents, on instructions, submitted that the petitioner's lands were never subjected to acquisition, as on date and the present writ petition has been filed based on a mere apprehension. He further submitted that if at all, the lands of the petitioner are sought to be acquired, the same will be done only by following the due process of law and therefore, he prays for dismissing the present writ petition.

¶19

Recording the submission made by the learned Government Advocate, this writ petition is closed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to work out his remedy in the manner known to law, if his grievance persists. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶20

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-II)

¶21

/True Copy/

¶22

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS-III)

¶23

¶24

¶25

1.The Secretary to Government, Department of Revenue, Secretariat, Fort St. George, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Chennai – 9.

¶26

¶27

2.The Commissioner, Rehabilitation and Resettlement for Land Acquisition, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai. 3.The District Collector, Collectorate, Tirunelveli District. 4.The District Revenue Officer, O/o. The District Revenue Office, Collectorate, Tirunelveli District.

¶28

5.The Superintendent of Police, O/o. The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District.

¶29

6.The Tahsildar, Alangulam Taluk Office, Tirunelveli District.

¶30

+1cc to Mr.I.Pinaygash, Advocate in SR No.93083

¶31

W.P.(MD)No.21742 of 2018 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.19659 & 19660 of 2018

¶32

NM /SV/SAR IIi/15.11.18/3P/8C.

¶33

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

K.Densing, v. the Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Densing, 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.Vedanta Limited, Vs Union of India

R.Saravanan Vs the District Collector

South Indian Green Cardamom Vs the Commissioner of Commercial

M/S.Shiv Timber Industries Vs the Commercial Tax

M/S.Iyyappan Sons, Vs the Commissioner of Commercial

M/S.Aahar Restaurant and Bar, Vs the Assistant Commissioner(St)