Dismissed

C.Rajendran v. The District Collector

Madras HC27 Jun 2019WP/12001/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought compensation for relocation under the NTCA programme as an adult family member whose application was not considered. The Court held the petitioner must initiate proceedings by applying with evidence to the Sub-Committee, dismissing the writ petition but granting liberty to do so.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Sub-Committee with all available evidence applicable to the compensation scheme.

C.Rajendran Vs The District Collector — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated 27.06.2019

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

¶5

Writ Petition No.12001 of 2019 & W.M.P.No.12258 of 2019

C.Rajendran

...Petitioner

1.The District Collector, District Collector Office, The Nilgiris District, Udhagamandalam.

¶10

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Gudalur, The Nilgiris District-643 212.

¶11

3.The Chief Conservator of Forests and The Field Director, Project Tiger, The Tiger Conservation Authority, Mudhumalai Tiger Reserve, Udhagamandalam, The Nilgiris District.

¶12

4.The Deputy Director, Project Tiger, The Tiger Conservation Authority, Mudhumalai Tiger Reserve, Udhagamandalam, The Nilgiris District.

¶13

5.The Tahsildar, Gudalur Taluk, The Nilgiris District. ... Respondents

¶14

Prayer: Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the 4^th respondent in pursuance of the order vide Ref.No.448/2019 dated 05.02.2019 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to pay the compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- to the petitioner for the Relocation programme for implementing Tiger Project, within a period as stipulated.

¶15

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

¶16

For petitioner : Ms.Neethimozhi.C For R1 ,R2 & R5 : Mr.N.Inbanathan Additional Government Pleader

¶17

For R3 & R4 : Mr.G.B.Rajesh O R D E R

¶18

The petitioner herein claiming as a member of the family, which was re-located for the Mudhumalai Tiger Reserve Forest claims compensation as per the scheme called as NTCA Relocation programme under option-1 (Golden Hand Shake).

¶19

The case of the petitioner is that, since he has crossed the age of 18 years, he should be considered as separate entity and he must be awarded compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for relocation as per the relocation programme. However, his request to the fourth respondent dated 15.03.2019, so far not been considered by the District Collector, Udhagamandalam.

¶20

In response to the writ affidavit, the Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and Field Director has submitted a report wherein, he has stated as below:-

¶21

“The eligible families and valuation of assets were finalized by a Sub-Committee involving the village members and officials of the line departments and finally approved by the DLC with reference to cut-off date as on 01.01.2014.”

¶22

From the report, it is obviously clear that any person who is entitled for compensation, they can make proper application to the authority and the application submitted by the claimants will be placed before the Sub Committee. The Sub Committee will scrutinize the application and thereafter pass order and any order passed by the Sub Committee is appealable before the Appellate Authority. In the present case, the writ petitioner straight a way approached this Court after making the representation dated 15.03.2019. In the representation addressed to the District Collector, the petitioner has not enclosed documents, which are relevant to process his application.

¶23

In such circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Sub Committee with all the evidence available with him, which will entitle him as per compensation scheme. On receipt of such application, the Sub Committee

¶24

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

¶25

shall process in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/Assistant Registrar(insp cell) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar rpl To 1.The District Collector, District Collector Office, The Nilgiris District, Udhagamandalam. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Gudalur, The Nilgiris District-643 212. 3.The Chief Conservator of Forests and The Field Director, Project Tiger, The Tiger Conservation Authority, Mudhumalai Tiger Reserve, Udhagamandalam, The Nilgiris District. 4.The Deputy Director, Project Tiger, The Tiger Conservation Authority, Mudhumalai Tiger Reserve, Udhagamandalam, The Nilgiris District. 5.The Tahsildar, Gudalur Taluk, The Nilgiris District. +1 cc to Government Pleader Sr.No. 54276 +1cc to Mr.C.Neethi Mozhi , Advocate SR.No. 53610

¶26

Writ Petition No.12001 of 2019 & W.M.P.No.12258 of 2019

¶27

A.SK(13/08/2019)

¶28

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

C.Rajendran v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Rajendran 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.Pandian Vs The Dean

M.Nagalingam Vs The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests

M/s.Gems B School Vs The Controller of Examination

Shankaralingam Vs The Special Commissioner

Childrens Academy Nursery Vs The District Educational Officer

Dr.E.Vengadasalabadhy Vs Principal Secretary