Dismissed

The Govt of Tamilnadu v. M.Ramalingam

Madras HC5 Sept 2019WA/2901/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ appeal challenging a remand order, the Court found that the land acquisition award was passed in 2015 under the old Act after the new Act commenced in 2014. Holding that no award could be passed under the old Act post-new Act commencement, the Court upheld the single judge's decision to set aside the award and dismissed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

The Govt of Tamilnadu Vs M.Ramalingam — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 05.09.2019

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

¶5

W.A.No.2901 of 2019 and C.M.P.No.18682 of 2019

¶6

1.The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep by Principal Secretary to Government, Energy Department, Fort St.George, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009. 2.The District Collector, Kancheepuram District. 3.The Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition Unit - IV (I/C), Ultra Mega Power Project, Cheyyur, Kancheepuram District. ... Appellants/Respondent Vs M.Ramalingam ...Respondent/Petitioner

¶7

PRAYER : Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order made in W.P.No.41237 of 2016 dated 23.02.2018 on the file of the High Court of Judicature at Madras.

¶8

WP.No.41237/2016: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying for a issuance at a unit of certiorari calling for the records relating to the award No.41 of 2015 dated 31/10/2015 at the respondents 2 and 3 herein and quash the same in so far as it relates to the petitioners land of an extent of 0.55.5 hectares comprised in Survey No.72/1 and an extent of 0.40.5 hectares in Survey NO.71/1 of Vedal Village Cheyyur Taluk Kancheepuram District.

¶9

For Appellants : Mr.V.Anandhamoorthy, Additional Government Pleader. For Respondent : Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan for Mrs.A.L.Gandhimathi

¶10

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

¶11

J U D G M E N T (Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.KIRUBAKARAN, J)

¶12

The appeal has been preferred against the remand order passed by the learned Single Judge setting aside the award passed by the authorities passed under the old Act especially when the date of the award is 31.10.2015, i.e, after the new Act came into force on 01.01.2014.

¶13

2.Heard Mr.V.Anandhamoorthy, learned Additional Government Pleader for the appellants and Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned Counsel for the respondent.

¶14

3.Agricultural lands to an extent of 0.55.5 hectares comprised in S.No.72/1 and 0.40.5 hectares comprised in S.No.71/1 at Vedal Village, Cheyyur Taluk, Kancheepuram District were acquired under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Lands for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997. The respondent was entitled for compensation under Section 7 (2) of the Act based on a negotiated agreement and a sum of Rs.6,500 per cent was sought to be given which was not agreeable to the respondent/land owner. Thereafter the land acquisition authorities fixed the said value which was offered to the land owner under Section 7 (2) of the Act as the compensation amount payable and the 3rd appellant passed the award on 31.10.2015.

¶15

4.The said award was challenged before the learned Single Judge contending that the said award cannot be passed fixing the value under the old Act especially when the new Act came into force on 01.01.2014. Accepting the said contention, the award was set aside and the matter was remanded to the authorities to fix the compensation as per the new Act.

¶16

5.Admittedly as on 01.01.2014, when the new Act came into force, the award was not passed. It was passed only on 31.10.2015 after the new Act came into force. Therefore, there cannot be any award under the old Act. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was correct in setting aside the award and remanding the matter back to the authorities for fresh disposal as per the new Act.

¶17

5.Hence, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/-

¶18

Assistant Registrar(Insp cell)

¶19

//True Copy//

¶20

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶21

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

¶22

ay
To
1.The Sub-Assistant Registrar (O.S.),
High Court of Madras,
Chennai.
2.The Principal Secretary to Government,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Energy Dept, Fort.St.George,
Secretariat, Chennai-9.
3.The District Collector,
Kancheepuram District.
4.The Special Tahsildar,
Land Acquisition unit IV,
Ultra Mega Power Project,
Cheyyar, Kancheepuram District.
+1cc to Mrs.A.L.Gandhimathi, Advocate SR.77118
+1cc to the Government Pleader SR.77760
W.A.No.2901 of 2019
and
C.M.P.No.18682 of 2019
PP(CO)
CB(31/10/2019)

¶23

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

The Govt of Tamilnadu v. M.Ramalingam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Govt of Tamilnadu v. M.Ramalingam

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

B.Lenin Vs the Commissioner

Jayammal @ Jayalakshmi(Deceased) Vs the State of Tamilnadu

R.Vellingiri Vs the District Collector