Disposed

K.krishnan, v. The Managing Director

Madras HC25 Jan 2019WP/888/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, the Madras High Court dismissed the prayer for immediate payment of compensation pending enquiry. Directing the fourth respondent to complete the enquiry under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Act and pass an award within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directs the fourth respondent to complete the enquiry and pass a suitable award within eight weeks of receiving the order.

K.krishnan, Vs The Managing Director — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 25.01.2019 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN W.P.No. 888 of 2019

¶2

K.Krishnan ... Petitioner

¶3

Vs
1.The Managing Director,
SIPCOT,
Egmore,
Chennai-600 008.
2.The District Collector,
Kancheepuram.
3.The District Revenue Officer (LA)
SIPCOT, Unit-II,
Sriperumbudur Expansion Scheme-II,
Sriperumbudur,
Kancheepuram.
4.The Special Tahsildar (LA)
SIPCOT, Unit-II,
Sriperumbudur Expansion Scheme-II,
Sriperumbudur,
Kancheepuram.
... Respondents
PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus,
directing the fourth respondent to conduct the enquiry and
disburse the compensation to the petitioner with his interest of
the provisions of the law.

¶4

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Karthik For Respondents : Mr.C.Thirumaran, Special Government Pleader

¶5

O R D E R

¶6

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the fourth respondent to pass an award and disburse the compensation amount.

¶7

The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner's

¶8

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

¶9

land was sought to be acquired under Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 [in short' "the Act"] but, so far no award has been passed and no compensation was paid to the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition.

¶10

Mr.C.Thirumaran, the Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, on instructions, submitted that now the fourth respondent has taken steps to conduct enquiry under Section 7(2) of the Act and issued a statutory notice to the petitioner to ascertain as to whether they are willing to enter into an agreement under Section 7(2) of the Act. Further, in the event of the petitioner insisting for passing an award under Section 7(3) of the Act, necessary notice would be issued to them and after conducting the enquiry, an appropriate award would be passed within a period of eight weeks.

¶11

Recording the above submissions of the learned Special Government Pleader, the writ petition is closed, with a direction to the fourth respondent to complete the enquiry and to pass suitable award, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt a of copy of this order. No costs.

¶12

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CO) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar gmd To 1.The Managing Director, SIPCOT, Egmore, Chennai-600 008. 2.The District Collector, Kancheepuram. 3.The District Revenue Officer (LA) SIPCOT, Unit-II, Sriperumbudur Expansion Scheme-II, Sriperumbudur, Kancheepuram. 4.The Special Tahsildar (LA) SIPCOT, Unit-II, Sriperumbudur Expansion Scheme-II, Sriperumbudur, Kancheepuram.

¶13

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

¶14

+1cc to Mr.M.Karthick, Advocate, S.R.No.7213

¶15

+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.6485

¶16

W.P.No. 888 of 2019

¶17

AK(CO) GSP(06/03/2019)

¶18

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

K.krishnan, v. The Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.krishnan, v. The Managing Director

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

P.Jayakumar Vs The Licensing Authority

S.Vijayan, Vs The Commissioner

D.Kamala, Vs The District Educational

E.M.Sekar, Vs KK.162, N.S.Reddiyur Primary

P.Dhanasekaran Vs The Inspector of Police

M.Rose Mariyam, Vs The Commissioner