Allowed

S.Mitra Srikanth v. Union of India

Madras HC27 Aug 2019WP/16651/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the National Highways Authority of India to refer the petitioner's dispute regarding land title and compensation eligibility to the competent Civil Court under relevant sections of the National Highways Act, 1956, within four weeks, dissipating the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the first respondent to refer the matter to the Competent Civil Court under Section 3G(5) read with 3H(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956 within four weeks.

S.Mitra Srikanth Vs Union of India — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED :27.08.2019

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶5

W.P.NO.16651 OF 2011

¶6

S.Mitra Srikanth ...Petitioner

¶7

vs
1. Union of India
Rep by the Secretary to Government
Ministry of Road Transport & Highways,
New Delhi 110 001.
2. The National Highways Authority of India,
8 th Floor, SPIC Annexe Building,
Guindy, Chennai 600 032.
3. The Project Director,
National Highways Authority of India,
8 th Floor, SPIC Annexe Building,
Guindy, Chennai.
4. The District Collector,
Chennai District,
Rajaji Salai, Chennai 600 001. ... Respondents
Prayer:

¶8

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ order or direction in the nature of writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the first respondent comprised in the impugned order in No.RW/NH12014/137/2007 TN/NH-8 dated 13.05.2011 and quash the same as being arbitrary, illegal, contrary to principles of natural justice.

¶9

For Petitioners : Mr.Ragul Balaji

¶10

For Respondents : *** Mr.N.Siva Bharathi for R4**

¶11

Richardson Wilson

¶12

for P.Wilson Associates -R3

¶13

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

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking to call for the records of the first respondent comprised in the impugned order in No.RW/NH-12014/137/2007 TN/NH-8 dated 13.05.2011 and quash the same as being arbitrary, illegal, contrary to principles of natural justice.

¶16

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that for the purpose of widening the highways, the petitioner properties were acquired. For some portion of the land, the authorities concerned have paid the compensation to the petitioner. However, for remaining portion of the land, they have not paid any compensation. For which, the petitioner filed this present Writ Petition before this Court. This Court in W.P.No.3372 of 2007 vide its order dated 18.04.2007 issued a direction to the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 25.01.2007, for payment of compensation. Therefore, the impugned order was passed and the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition.

¶17

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that it would suffice to direct the first respondent to refer the matter under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956, since the dispute is pertaining to the petitioner's title and entitlement of compensation. Hence, this Court may issue a direction to the first respondent to refer the matter under Section 3G(5) read with 3H(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956, to the Competent Civil Court.

¶18

4.The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that they will consider the representation made by the petitioner.

¶19

5.Considering the facts and on a perusal of the impugned order, the dispute in this Writ Petition is pertaining to the title of the petitioner and entitlement of compensation, from the authorities concerned for acquisition of his land. In such circumstances, the first respondent is directed to refer the matter under Section 3G(5) read with 3H(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956, to the Competent Civil Court within a period of four weeks.

¶20

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

¶21

6.With the above directions, the present Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶22

Sd/-

¶23

Assistant Registrar(CO)

¶24

24.09.2019

¶25

*** Corrected as per the letter dated 12.03.2020 made in W.P.No.16651 of 2011 Sd/-**

¶26

Assistant Registrar(CO) dated 19.03.2020

¶27

//True Copy//

¶28

Sub Assistant Registrar
vkr
To
1. Union of India
Rep by the Secretary to Government
Ministry of Road Transport & Highways,
New Delhi 110 001. To be substituted
to the order already
2. The National Highways Authority of India, Despatched on
8 th Floor, SPIC Annexe Building, 11.11.2019
Guindy, Chennai 600 032.
3. The Project Director,
National Highways Authority of India,
8 th Floor, SPIC Annexe Building,
Guindy, Chennai.
4. The District Collector,
Chennai District,
Rajaji Salai, Chennai 600 001.
+1cc to M/s.P.Wilson Associates Sr.73799
+1cc to the Government Pleader Sr.74025
W.P.No.16651 of 2011
ad[co]
srg 28/09/2019
CS/19/03/2020

¶29

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

S.Mitra Srikanth v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Mitra Srikanth v. Union of India

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

Chola Spinning Mills Private Vs Tamilnadu Electricity

B. Chandrasekaran (Secretary) Vs the Corporation of Chennai

P.K.P.Processors, HTSCNO.116 Vs Tamil Nadu Electricity

S.Selva Rajendran, Vs the Chennai Metropolitan

E.Natarajan Vs Tamilnadu Small Industries

V. Subramaniam Vs the District Collector