Disposed

Seetharaman(Died) v. the District Collector

Madras HC21 Apr 2021CRP/481/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge disposed of multiple Civil Revision Petitions under Article 226 directing the Subordinate Judge, Hosur, to swiftly try pending execution petitions concerning land acquisition compensation and order payment with quietus.

What did the court decide?

Execution petitions reverted to Sub Judge for disposal by 15.07.2021; parties directed to file money statements; respondent to make payment and give quietus.

Seetharaman(Died) Vs the District Collector — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.481, 477, 482, 483, 487, 494, 500 & 514 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 21.04.2021

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

¶6

C.R.P(NPD).Nos.481, 477, 482, 483, 487, 494, 500, 514 of 2021

¶7

C.R.P.(NPD).No.481 of 2021
1.S.Nagaveni
2.S.Bharath Kumar
3.S.Banupriya @ Rajalakshmi
4.S.Srilalitha
5.S.Srinivasan ...Petitioners
Vs
1.The District Collector,
Krishnagiri
2.The Executive Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
Bangalore Road,
Hosur. ...Respondents

¶8

Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to direct the Executing Court in E.P.No.139 of 2007 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Hosur and to pass suitable and appropriate

¶9

1/5

¶10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶11

C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.481, 477, 482, 483, 487, 494, 500 & 514 of 2021

¶12

orders to recover the amount due tot he petitioners under the decree in L.A.O.P.No.641 of 1996 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Hosur.

¶13

For Petitioners
in all C.R.Ps. : Mr.V.Raghavachari
For Respondents
in all C.R.Ps. : Mr.S.Jaganathan
Government Advocate (For R1)
Mr.M.R.Sivakumar
Standing Counsel (For R2)
COMMON ORDER
When all these Civil Revision Petitions came up for hearing, it was
expressed by Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned counsel who appears for the
revision petitioners that inspite of the fact that the lands had been acquired
more than two decades ago, compensation in full had not been paid.
2.This Court on taking note of the said representation, directed the
Executive Engineer, Housing Board, Hosur Division to appear before this
Court.

¶14

2/5

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶16

C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.481, 477, 482, 483, 487, 494, 500 & 514 of 2021

¶17

3.Accordingly, Mr.Edwin Sundarsingh, Executive Engineer appeared

¶18

through video conferencing. The Housing Board is represented by Mr.M.R.Sivakumar, learned Standing Counsel and on behalf of the Government, Mr.S.Jaganathan, learned Government Advocate is also present.

¶19

4.Mr.M.R.Sivakumar, learned Standing Counsel stated that there has

¶20

been no deliberate refusal to pay compensation. The learned counsel also pointed out that as a matter of fact, compensation had been deposited on three earlier occasions but admitted that the present execution petitions are also pending. It will be only appropriate that the Executing Court takes control of all the issues now raised in the execution petitions.

¶21

5.Accordingly, after hearing the parties, the following directions are

¶22

issued:

¶23

All the Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of and E.P.Nos.139 of 2007, 134/2015, 139/2015, 138/2015 133/2015, 141/2015, 137/2015 and125/2015 are reverted back to the learned Sub Judge, Hosur where

¶24

3/5

¶25

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶26

C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.481, 477, 482, 483, 487, 494, 500 & 514 of 2021

¶27

L.A.O.P.Nos.641/1996, 510/1996, 561/1996, 533/1996, 504/1996, 562/1996, 551/1996 and 417/1996 are pending;

¶28

1. The learned Sub Judge, Hosur may apply his mind and dispose of the Execution Petitions on or before 15.07.2021;

¶29

1. Both the petitioners in the execution petition and the respondents are directed to file respective statement of money received, deposited and claimed;

¶30

1. The learned Sub Judge on the basis of the records may pass final orders by 15.07.2021; and

¶31

1. The respondent, namely, Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Hosur Division may make whatever payment is to be made and give a quietus to the entire issue without any further demur.

¶32

6.With the above directions, the revision petitions are disposed of.

¶33

No order as to costs.

¶34

21.04.2021

¶35

cse Index:Yes/No Internet: Yes/No

¶36

4/5

¶37

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶38

C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.481, 477, 482, 483, 487, 494, 500 & 514 of 2021

¶39

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J,

¶40

cse

¶41

To
The Subordinate Judge,
Hosur.
C.R.P(NPD).Nos.481, 477, 482, 483, 487,
494, 500, 514 of 2021
21.04.2021

¶42

5/5

¶43

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

Seetharaman(Died) v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Seetharaman(Died) 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

A.Mohandoss Vs Manju Bai

Vikram Mahesh Ahuja Vs the Deputy Director

P.M.Krishnamoorthy @ Manoharan Vs Kannagi

Govindhan Vs Govindu @ Govindammal

P.S.Velusamy Vs Chokkalingam

Saroja Vs M.P.Sulochana