Allowed

Sheik Abdul Kadar v. the District Collector

Madras HC25 Oct 2019WP(MD)/22719/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single para order by the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court directing the second respondent to process a representation dated 20.09.2019 concerning delayed land acquisition compensation reference within eight weeks, without expressing an opinion on the time limit argument.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the second respondent to do the needful on the representation dated 20.09.2019 within eight weeks.

Sheik Abdul Kadar Vs the District Collector — Public Procurement and Tenders | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.22719 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 25.10.2019

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR

¶6

W.P(MD)No.22719 of 2019

Shiek Abdul Kadar

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The District Collector, Ramanathapuram,

¶11

Ramanathapuram District.

¶12

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,

¶13

Ramanathapuram,

¶14

Ramanathapuram District.

¶15

3.The Special Tahsildar,

¶16

NH – 49, Unit V Special District Revenue Office, District Court Campus, Ramanathapuram,

¶17

Ramanathapuram District.

¶18

4.The Revenue Tahsildar,

¶19

Ramanathapuram,

¶20

Ramanathapuram District.

¶21

... Respondents

¶22

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents herein to take necessary action on the basis of petitioner's representation dated 20.09.2019.

¶23

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Shajahan For Respondents : Ms.V.P.M.Vaishnavi, Government Advocate.

¶24

ORDER

¶25

Mr.A.Shajahan, learned counsel on record for writ petitioner and Ms.V.P.M.Vaishnavi, learned Government Advocate, who accepts notice on behalf of all four respondents are before this Court.

¶26

With consent of learned counsel on both sides, main writ petition is taken up, heard out and is being disposed of.

¶27

3.The entire Writ Petition turns on a very narrow compass.

¶28

4.Writ petitioner has sent a representation dated 20.09.2019 (page Nos.23 and 24 of the typed set of papers forming part of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ case file) inter alia to the first respondent (jurisdictional

¶29

1/3

¶30

W.P(MD)No.22719 of 2019

¶31

District Collector) regarding a reference qua compensation for lands that were acquired. This representation dated 20.09.2019 has been forwarded by the first respondent to the second respondent under cover of communication dated 25.09.2019 bearing reference Na.Ka.No.B1/59054/2017.

¶32

5.It is the case of writ petitioner that acquisition is more than a decade old and that repeated requests for reference have not evoked requisite action.

¶33

6.Learned counsel for writ petitioner drew the attention of this Court to Section 20 of the 'Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 (Tamil Nadu Act 34 of 2002)' (hereinafter referred to as 'said Act' for brevity) and submitted that time limit for such reference is sixty days and that the time frame elapsed long ago.

¶34

7.Learned State Counsel submits that the second respondent will do the needful qua representation dated 20.09.2019 at the earliest.

¶35

8.Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the aforesaid plea of learned counsel for writ petitioner regarding time frame, there shall be a direction to the second respondent to do the needful on its own merits and in accordance with law qua 20.09.2019 representation within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶36

9.As the aforesaid narrative douses the anxiety of writ petitioner, no further orders are required.

¶37

10.Instant Writ Petition is disposed of recording the aforesaid position. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶38

// True Copy //

¶39

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶40

¶41

¶42

1.The District Collector, Ramanathapuram,

¶43

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

¶44

2/3

¶45

W.P(MD)No.22719 of 2019

¶46

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District.

¶47

3.The Special Tahsildar, NH – 49, Unit V Special District Revenue Office, District Court Campus, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District. 4.The Revenue Tahsildar, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District. +1 CC to M/s.A.SHAJAHAN, Advocate ( SR-94597[F] dated 25/10/2019 ) W.P(MD)No.22719 of 2019 25.10.2019 KM/(08.11.2019) 3P 6C

¶48

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

¶49

3/3

Sheik Abdul Kadar v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sheik Abdul Kadar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Palanisamy Gounder, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Siluvai, S/O. Jorris, Vs the District Collector

G. Sekar Vs the District Revenue Officer

S. Krishna Kumar Vs the State of Tamilnadu, Rep.

M/S. Anant Commodities Pvt. - Vs Union of India

Christopher Vs the District Collector