Disposed

K.Ananthanarayanan v. The District Collector

Madras HC29 Jan 2020WP/13791/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition filed seeking directions to hand over acquired land for road construction and burial ground access. Finding that the land had already been handed over per the counter affidavit, the Court dismissed the writ but directed respondents to expedite road laying.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; directed respondents to lay the road as expeditiously as possible.

K.Ananthanarayanan Vs The District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 29.01.2020

¶3

C O R A M

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

¶5

W.P.No.13791 of 2017

¶6

K.Ananthanarayanan ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs.
1.The District Collector,
Cuddalore District.
2.The Revenue Divisional officer,
Vridhachalam, Cuddalore District.
3.The Special Tahsildar,
Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare,
Vridhachalam, Cuddalore District.
4.The Tahsildar,
Vridhachalam, Cuddalore District.
5.The Block Development Officer,
Paravalur Panchayat,
Vridhachalam. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India praying to issue a writ of mandamus directing the
respondents to handover the acquired lands in R.S.Nos.48/4C,
48/2B, 55/2B, 56/3B2A to an extent of 20.5 ares in Paravallur
Village, Vridhachalam Taluk, Cuddalore District to the
Paravallur Village Panchayat for laying road and directing the
5 th respondent to lay road for the dead bodies to be buried in
the Irular burial ground in accordance with law within a time
that may be fixed by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Dinesh Kumar
For Respondents : Mr.R.S.Selvam,
Government Advocate
ORDER

¶8

This writ petition has been filed for a mandamus directing the respondents to hand over the acquired land in R.S.Nos.48/4C,

¶9

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

¶10

48/2B, 55/2B, 56/3B2A to an extent of 20.5 ares in Paravallur Village, Vridhachalam Taluk, Cuddalore District to the Paravallur Village Panchayat for laying road and consequential direction to the fifth respondent to lay the road to enable the dead bodies to be buried in the Irular burial ground.

¶11

Heard Mr.P.Dinesh Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.R.S.Selvam, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.

¶12

The learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent which reads as follows:

¶13

“5.It is submitted that Tvl.Saravanan, Selvam who are the owners of the acquired land in Survey No.55/2B and 55/3F had accepted and received the compensation amount. But, however, Tvl.Thangasubramanian, Thangavel Padayachi and Jayarama Chettiar who are the owners of the acquired land in Survey No.56/7, 56/3B2, 56/10, 56/11, 48/4C2 and 48/6D refused to receive the compensation amount and hence the award amount was kept inRevenue Deposit on 19.04.2001.

¶14

It is submitted that after acquiring the above said lands, necessary entries have been executed in the Village records as “Irular Mayana Pathai”. Further, it is submitted that the petitioner's land in Survey No.101 is situated One Kilometer away from the acquired lands. Hence, Petitioner's land will not be disturbed in any way in setting up the Irular Community Burial Ground pathway.

¶15

It is submitted that the acquired lands were handed over to the 5^th respondent who is now taking appropriate steps to lay the road in the acquired lands. It is submitted that after acquiring the above said lands, appropriate changes have been made in the village accounts and now steps are being taken to lay the road in the acquired lands. Hence, the contentions of the petitioner have no merits and deserves no consideration and liable to be rejected.”

¶16

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, since the third respondent has already handed over the acquired land to the fifth respondent for the purpose of laying the road, the prayer sought for in this writ petition has been achieved. It is also made clear in the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent in paragraph 6 that the petitioner's land will

¶17

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

¶18

not be disturbed in any way for laying Irular Community Burial Ground pathway.

¶19

Recording the aforementioned paragraphs of the counter affidavit filed by the petitioner and in view of the fact that the relief sought by the petitioner has been achieved, nothing survives for further adjudication in this matter. However, the respondents are directed to lay the road as expeditiously as possible. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶20

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CO)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1.The District Collector,
Cuddalore District.
2.The Revenue Divisional officer,
Vridhachalam, Cuddalore District.
3.The Special Tahsildar,
Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare,
Vridhachalam, Cuddalore District.
4.The Tahsildar,
Vridhachalam, Cuddalore District.
5.The Block Development Officer,
Paravalur Panchayat,
Vridhachalam.
+1cc to M/s.P.Dinesh Kumar, Advocate Sr.7057
+1cc to the Government Pleader Sr.7711
W.P.No.13791 of 2017
cp[co]
srg 28/02/2020

¶21

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

K.Ananthanarayanan v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Ananthanarayanan 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.Velmurugan Vs the Branch Manager, Salem Dist

M.Lakshmanan Vs the Commissioner

M.Thiagarajan, Vs the Commissioner

A.P.Shareefa, Vs State of Tamil Nadu

S.Kumar, Vs The Tahsildar/ Tamil Nadu

T.K.Manimekalai Vs The Commissioner