Disposed

V.S.Ganesan, S/O.Sokkaiah v. the State Rep. by

Madras HC19 Mar 2018WP(MD)/5661/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court disposed of a writ petition filed seeking a Mandamus to establish an electrical sub-station. The Court directed the third respondent to respond to a specific communication, allowing subsequent disposal of the land acquisition representation on merits.

What did the court decide?

Directed the third respondent to respond to the first respondent's communication of 20.02.2018 within four weeks; the first and second respondents shall dispose of the petitioner's representation with

V.S.Ganesan, S/O.Sokkaiah Vs the State Rep. by — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 19.03.2018 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA

¶4

W.P(MD)No.5661 of 2018

¶5

V.S.Ganesan .. Petitioner

¶6

Vs.

¶7

1.The State represented by The District Collector, Pudukottai District, Pudukottai.

¶8

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer cum Sub-Collector, Pudukottai.

¶9

3.The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu State Electricity Board(Distribution), Pudukottai – 622 001.

¶10

4.The Tahsildar, Thirumayam Taluk, Pudukottai District.

¶11

5.Pandiarajan .. Respondents

¶12

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to consider the earlier representation of the petitioner dated 19.10.2015 as followed up by other representations during subsequent years and direct them to establish an electrical sub-station of 33 megawatt of electrical energy at No.115, K.Rayapuram Village, Thirumayam Taluk, Pudukottai District.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Singan For R-1, R-2 and R-4 : Mr.A.Muthukaruppan, Additional Government Pleader For R-3 : M/s.SMS.Johny Basha Mrs.S.Srimathi

¶14

ORDER

¶15

[Order of the Court was made by M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J.]

¶16

By consent, the main writ petition itself, is taken up for https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ final disposal.

¶17

¶18

Mr.A.Muthukaruppan, learned Additional Government Pleader accepts notice on behalf of Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 and M/s.SMS.Johny Basha and Mrs.S.Srimathi, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the third respondent.

¶19

This Writ Petition styled as a 'Public Interest Litigation', is filed by the petitioner, who is a resident of Kallur, K.Rayavaram, Thirumayam Taluk, Pudukottai District and according to him, on account of heavy industiralization of Kallur Panchayat, K.Rayapuram Village, there is absolute need and necessity for putting up electrical sub-station, for augmenting and increasing the electricity supply and in this regard, very many representations have been submitted to acquire the lands in Survey Nos.263/1, 2 and 3 (0.82 ares), Survey No.421 (0.48.5 ares), Survey No.422/2 (0.09.5 ares) and Survey No.422/3 (0.20.0 ares) and according to him, the fifth respondent has encroached upon certain portion of the land in Survey No.421.

¶20

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that all the lands are belong to Government and the first respondent on receipt of the representation from the petitioner, dated 05.02.2018, has also sent a communication to the third respondent in O.Mu.E5/3142/2018, dated 20.02.2018, calling upon him to take a decision and the inform the same to the petitioner as well as the first respondent and in spite of such communication, no steps have been taken so far, to acquire the land for the purpose of putting up the electrical sub-station and therefore, the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court by filing this Writ Petition.

¶21

This Court heard the submission made on either side and perused the materials placed before it.

¶22

This Court, in the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and without going into the merits of the claim projected by the petitioner either in this Writ Petition or in his representation, directs the third respondent to respond to the communication of the first respondent dated 20.02.2018 cited supra, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and depending upon the response, the respondents 1 and 2, shall consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 05.02.2018, on merits and in accordance with law, within a further period of eight weeks thereafter and communicate the decision taken, to the petitioner as well as the fifth respondent.

¶23

The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. No costs.

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

Assistant Registrar(T&P)

¶26

/True Copy/

¶27

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

¶28

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶29

¶30

¶31

1.The District Collector, Pudukottai District, Pudukottai.

¶32

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer cum Sub-Collector, Pudukottai.

¶33

3.The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu State Electricity Board(Distribution), Pudukottai – 622 001. 4.The Tahsildar, Thirumayam Taluk, Pudukottai District. +1cc to M/S.V.Singan, Advocate SR.No. 56173 +1cc to Special Government Pleader, SR.No. 56529

¶34

ORDER MADE IN W.P(MD)No.5661 of 2018 19.03.2018 pm JM/KK/SAR 1/03.04.2018/3P/7C

¶35

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

V.S.Ganesan, S/O.Sokkaiah v. the State Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.S.Ganesan, S/O.Sokkaiah v. the State Rep. by

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

The Special Officer Vs S. Muniraj

K.Kulanthaivel Vs the District Collector

G.Sathiyaseelan, Vs the District Collector

The Special Commissioner Vs Tmt.Meenakshi

A.Sikkanthar, Vs the Commissioner

S.Balan @ Balasubramanian, Vs the District Collector