Disposed

The Special Deputy Collector (La) v. E.S.Elangovan

Madras HC7 Jul 2020CMP/6975/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court condoned a 443-day delay in representing appeals against Land Acquisition orders. The court directed the registry to number the papers as Civil Revision Petitions under Article 227, relying on precedent that appeals under Section 54 of the TNLAA are not maintainable for proceedings under Section 20 of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001.

What did the court decide?

The delay of 443 days was condoned and the petitions were listed for admission. The registry is directed to number the case papers as Civil Revision Petitions.

The Special Deputy Collector (La) Vs E.S.Elangovan — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

CMP.Nos.6975, 6978, 6980, 6982, 6983, 6984 and 6986 of 2020 in A.S.SR.No.70576, 70596, 70592, 70580, 70588, 70584 and 70568 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 07.07.2020

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN

¶6

CMP.Nos.6975, 6978, 6980, 6982, 6983, 6984 and 6986 of 2020 in A.S.SR.Nos.70576, 70596, 70592, 70580, 70588, 70584 and 70568 of 2018

¶7

The Special Deputy Collector (LA),
Tamil Nadu Urban Development Project – III,
Chennai at Poonamallee,
Chennai – 56. .. Petitioner / Appellant in all CMPs.
Vs.
1. E.S.Elangovan
2. E.S.Sathiyamoorthy
3. E.S.Saravanavelu
4. The Divisional Engineer (Highways)
Chennai Metropolitan Development Plan
(Division) Saidapet,
Chennai – 15.
.. Respondents/Respondents in CMP.No.6975 of 2020
1. D.Parangusam
2. The Divisional Engineer (Highways)
Chennai Metropolitan Development Plan
(Division) Saidapet,
Chennai – 15.
.. Respondents/Respondents in CMP.No.6978 of 2020
1. G.Ravichandran
2. The Divisional Engineer (Highways)
Chennai Metropolitan Development Plan
(Division) Saidapet,
Chennai – 15.
.. Respondents/Respondents in CMP.No.6980 of 2020

¶8

1/6

¶9

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶10

CMP.Nos.6975, 6978, 6980, 6982, 6983, 6984 and 6986 of 2020 in A.S.SR.No.70576, 70596, 70592, 70580, 70588, 70584 and 70568 of 2018

¶11

D.Sundaramurthy
2. The Divisional Engineer (Highways)
Chennai Metropolitan Development Plan
(Division) Saidapet,
Chennai – 15.
.. Respondents/Respondents in CMP.No.6982 of 2020
1. G.Ravichandran
2. The Divisional Engineer (Highways)
Chennai Metropolitan Development Plan
(Division) Saidapet,
Chennai – 15.
.. Respondents/Respondents in CMP.No.6983 of 2020
1.E.D.Sundaramurthy
2. The Divisional Engineer (Highways)
Chennai Metropolitan Development Plan
(Division) Saidapet,
Chennai – 15.
.. Respondents/Respondents in CMP.No.6984 of 2020
1. Kowsalya
2. D.Sivaprakasam
3. D.Pathipan
4. D.Ravikumar
5. D.Prabhakaran
6. The Divisional Engineer (Highways)
Chennai Metropolitan Development Plan
(Division) Saidapet, Chennai – 15.
.. Respondents/Respondents in CMP.No.6986 of 2020

¶12

These petitions have been filed Under Order 4 Rule 9 (4) of CPC to condone the delay of 443 days in representing the CRP (NPD) Sr.Nos.70576, 70596, 70592, 70580, 70588, 70584 and 70568 of 2018 respectively filed against the order passed in LAOP.Nos.78, 83, 82, 79, 81, 80 of 2015 and 11 of 2016 respectively dated 16.12.2017 on the file of the Special Subordinate Court, Tiruvallur.

¶13

2/6

¶14

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶15

CMP.Nos.6975, 6978, 6980, 6982, 6983, 6984 and 6986 of 2020 in A.S.SR.No.70576, 70596, 70592, 70580, 70588, 70584 and 70568 of 2018

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Balagopal, SGP (AS) in all CMPs

¶17

COMMON ORDER

¶18

These Miscellaneous Petitions have been filed seeking to condone the delay of 443 days in representing the CRP (NPD) SR.Nos.70576, 70596, 70592, 70580, 70588, 70584 and 70568 of 2018 respectively filed against the orders dated 16.12.2017 passed by the learned Special Sub Judge, Tiruvallur, in respective LAOP.Nos.78, 83, 82, 79, 81, 80 of 2015 and 11 of 2016.

¶19

2.Heard the learned Special Government Pleader (AS) appearing for the petitioner, who, reiterating the averments made in the affidavits filed in support of these petitions, submitted that since the case papers were mixed up with some other bundles in the Government Pleader office, the defects pointed out by the Registry could not be rectified within the time stipulated and after tracing out the

¶20

papers and after compliance, the papers were represented with a delay of 443 days and hence, the delay occasioned is neither wilful nor wanton, but only due to the said reason. He further submitted that since the orders impugned herein

¶21

are passed in the proceedings initiated under Section 20 of the Tamil Nadu

¶22

3/6

¶23

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶24

CMP.Nos.6975, 6978, 6980, 6982, 6983, 6984 and 6986 of 2020 in A.S.SR.No.70576, 70596, 70592, 70580, 70588, 70584 and 70568 of 2018

¶25

Highways Act, 2001, only a revision under Section 227 of the Constitution of India is maintainable and not a regular appeal under Section 54 of The Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Act and hence, the case papers may be directed to be numbered as Civil Revision Petitions. In support of the same, he placed reliance on the decision rendered by a Division Bench in N.Ponnusamy and another v. The Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Tamil Nadu Road Sector Project, Tiruvannamalai [Review Petition No.98/2016 dated 30.01.2019], wherein, it was held as under:

¶26

“17.Therefore, before parting with, we make it clear that as against the proceedings under Sec. 20 of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001, an Appeal under Section 54 of The Land Acquisition Act is not maintainable and if at all only a Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of The Constitution of India is maintainable. Therefore, if any such appeal (s) is/are pending or any appeal is filed in future, the Registry shall convert it into a Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of The Constitution of India and post it before the concerned Portfolio Judge dealing with Civil Revision Petitions under Article 227 of The Constitution of India.”

¶27