Disposed

G.Subramanian v. The Collector

Madras HC22 Sept 2020WP/32891/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted a direction to the Special Tahsildar to consider the petitioners' representations dated 25.05.2016 and 06.06.2016 regarding land acquisition compensation for the 'Thitta Amaipu Kudiyirupu' project and to pass orders on merits within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 4th respondent to consider specific representations dated 25.05.2016 and 06.06.2016 and pass orders on merits within eight weeks.

G.Subramanian Vs The Collector — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 22.09.2020

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

The HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY

¶5

W.P.Nos. 32891 to 32893 of 2016

¶6

G. Subramanian … Petitioner in W.P.No.32891/2016 Mrs. D. Rajeswari … Petitioner in W.P.No.32892/2016 Mrs. Menaka Namachivayam … Petitioner in W.P.No.32893/2016

¶7

¶8

1. The Collector, Office of the Collectorate, Villupuram District, Villupuram. 2. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, No.493, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai. 3. The Special District Revenue Officer, Villupuram District, Villupuram.

¶9

The Special Tahsildar, [Land Acquisition & Tamil Nadu Housing Board], Kundru Salai, Cuddalore District. 5. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Villupuram District. 6. Revenue Divisional Officer, Cuddalore District. [ R5 & R6 – Suo Motu Impleaded as per court order dated 20.03.2018 in W.P Nos. 32891 to 32893/2016 ] ... Respondents

¶10

W.P.No. 32891/2016 Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing a Writ of Mandamus directing the 4^th respondent to consider the representation dated 06.06.2016 submitted by the petitioner herein and to settle the award amount four times the market value of the land acquired for the conceived development of “Thitta Amaipu Kudiyirupu”

¶11

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

¶12

project in Villupuram District in Survey No.55/1, 2, 24-1.12, Plot No.11 to an extent of 2400 sq.ft. (house plot) at Salai Medu Village, Koliyanur Panchayat Union, Villupuram Circle to the petitioner.

¶13

W.P.No. 32892/2016 Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing a Writ of Mandamus directing the 4^th respondent to consider the representation dated 06.06.2016 submitted by the petitioner herein and to settle the award amount four times the market value of the land acquired for the conceived development of “Thitta Amaipu Kudiyirupu” project in Villupuram District in Survey No.55/1, 2, 24-1.12, Plot No.12 to an extent of 2400 sq.ft. (house plot) at Salai Medu Village, Koliyanur Panchayat Union, Villupuram Circle to the petitioner.

¶14

W.P.No. 32893/2016 Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing a Writ of Mandamus directing the 4^th respondent to consider the representation dated 25.05.2016 submitted by the petitioner herein and to settle the award amount four times the market value of the land acquired for the conceived development of “Thitta Amaipu Kudiyirupu” project in Villupuram District in Survey No.48/1,, Plot No.7 to an extent of 2400 sq.ft. (house plot) at Salai Medu Village, Koliyanur Panchayat Union, Villupuram Circle to the petitioner.

¶15

For Petitioners: Mr. C. Karthik For Respondents: Mr. M. Elumalai Addl. Govt. Pleader – for R1 & R3 to R6 Mr. S. Vanchinathan – for R2. COMMON ORDER

¶16

The petitioners have filed the above Writ Petitions to issue Writs of Mandamus directing the 4^th respondent to consider the representations dated 25.05.2016 and 06.06.2016 submitted by the petitioners and to settle the award amount four times the market value of the land acquired for the conceived development of “Thitta Amaipu Kudiyirupu” project in Villupuram District in Survey Nos.55/1, 2, 24-1.12 and 48/1 at Salai Medu Village, Koliyanur Panchayat Union, Villupuram Circle to the petitioners.

¶17

Mr. C. Karthik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that though the petitioners have given

¶18

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

¶19

their representations as early as in the year 2015, the 4^th respondent has not considered and passed orders in the representations sofar.

¶20

Mr. M. Elumalai, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 3 to 6, submitted that if the petitioners' representations have not yet been considered by the 4^th respondent, in such case, the 4^th respondent may be directed to consider the petitioners' representations dated 25.05.2016 and 06.06.2016 and pass orders, in accordance with law.

¶21

Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, taking into consideration the limited prayer sought for by the learned counsel for the petitioners, without expressing any opinion with regard to the merits of the case, I direct the 4^th respondent to consider the petitioners' representations dated 25.05.2016 and 06.06.2016 and pass orders, on merits and in accordance with law, after giving notice to all the interested parties, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶22

With these observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶23

No costs. Sd/-

¶24

Assistant Registrar

¶25

// True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar

¶26

Rj To 1. The Collector, Office of the Collectorate, Villupuram District, Villupuram. 2. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, No.493, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai.

¶27

The Special District Revenue Officer, Villupuram District, Villupuram.

¶28

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

¶29

The Special Tahsildar,

¶30

[Land Acquisition & Tamil Nadu Housing Board], Kundru Salai, Cuddalore District.

¶31

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Villupuram District.

¶32

Revenue Divisional Officer, Cuddalore District.

¶33

+1cc to the Government Pleader, Sr.No.31136

¶34

+3cc to Mr.C.Karthik, Advocate, Sr.Nos.31112,31113,31114

¶35

W.P.Nos. 32891 to 32893 of 2016
SS(CO)
GS(19/10/2020)

¶36

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

G.Subramanian v. The Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Subramanian v. The Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.Anush Infrastructure Pvt.L Vs State of Tamil Nadu

M/S.K.Venkatachalam(Deceased) Vs The Commissioner (Land

C.Venkata Reddy Vs The Sub Registrar

S.Natarajan Vs The Distrct Collector

S.Natarajan Vs The Distrct Collector

J.Lalithamani, Vs The Regional Transport