Disposed

K.Vasantha v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC28 Oct 2021WP/23193/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, the petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the State and NLC India to consider a representation for compensation for land acquired for development, following a letter from the Special Tahsildar clarifying title.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents 1 and 5 to consider petitioner's representation dated 17.03.2021 and pass appropriate orders on merits within twelve weeks.

K.Vasantha Vs The State of Tamil Nadu — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 28.10.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN

¶5

W.P.NO.23193 OF 2021

¶6

K.Vasantha

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1. The State of Tamilnadu rep. By its Secretary, Industries Department, Fort. St. George, Chennai

¶10

2. The District Collector, Cuddalore District

¶11

3. The Special Tahsildar No.3, Land Acquisition office,

¶12

Neyveli – 2

¶13

4. The Special Deputy Collector, NLC India Limited

¶14

Neyveli – 2 Tamilnadu

¶15

5. NLC India Limited rep. By the Chairman, Office of the General Manager, Land Acquisition and R& R department, Neyveli – 607 807

¶16

... Respondents

¶17

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the
respondents 1 and 5 to consider the petitioner's representation
dated 17.03.2021 by considering the 3rd respondent's letter in
Na.Ka.A.1414/2018 dated 05.09.2019 to the 4th respondent to pay

¶18

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

¶19

compensation for the schedule mentioned property having
S.Nos.57/1, 57/2, 57/3 comprising of 2 acres, 86 cents length
within a reasonable time fixed by this Court.

¶20

 For Petitioner : Mr.M.Velmurugan

¶21

 For Respondents : Mr.V.Veluchamy for R1 to R4
 Government Advocate

¶22

 Mr.Nithianandam for R5
 Standing Counsel

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

With consent on either side, the main Writ Petition
itself is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage.

¶25

2. The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226
of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus
directing the respondents 1 and 5 to consider the petitioner's
representation dated 17.03.2021 by considering the 3rd
respondent's letter in Na.Ka.A.14/2018 dated 05.09.2019 to the
4th respondent to pay compensation for the schedule mentioned
property having S.No.57/1,57/2, 57/3 comprising of 2 acres
length within a reasonable time.

¶26

3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner's
husband was an ex-serviceman. In the year 1971, during the war,
he was injured and became medically unfit to continue as army
personnel. As there was no source of income, the 1st respondent
had assigned land of 2 acres and 86 cents at Aziz Nagar,
Virudhachalam Taluk, Cuddalore district to the petitioner's
husband. The 5th respondent acquired the said property for its
development and the petitioner's husband preferred a writ for
compensation in W.P.No.1677 of 1992, wherein this Court in its
order dated 14.10.1996, had passed an order directing the
respondents to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- per acre, however, the
5th respondent refused to pay the compensation, instead they sent
a letter stating that they would offer job to the petitioner's
son. Hence the petitioner has preferred another W.P.No.29906 of
2002 and this Court by order dated 13.12.2006 directed the
petitioner's husband to make a representation before the 3rd
respondent within a period of two weeks, accordingly, the

¶27

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

¶28

petitioner's husband submitted a representation to all the
respondents and the 3rd respondent passed an award on 17.12.2007,
wherein the 4th respondent had sought for two clarifications,
viz., (i) whether the schedule mentioned property was allotted
to the said Kullamal and Chellan? (ii) when the compensation has
already been give to the said Kullamal and Chellan, would it be
proper to grant compensation again to the petitioner's husband?,
thereafter, the 3rd respondent had issued a certificate that the
schedule mentioned property is in possession of petitioner's
family, which would clearly state that the said Kullamal and
Chellan has nothing to do with the schedule mentioned property.
Aggrieved by the non action of the respondents, the petitioner's
husband sent a legal notice to the respondents and the 1st
respondent had directed the District Collector, Cuddalore
district to file a report after conducting detailed enquiry. In
the meantime, the petitioner's husband was hospitalised at
regular intervals and had died on 12.06.2014 and one of the
petitioner's son was hospitalised and he passed away in the year
2017 and the petitioner's legal heirs gave a representation to
the respondents on 30.10.2018. The petitioner submitted a
representation on 21.08.2019 and the 5th respondent failed to act
upon the advice of the 3rdrespondent vide Letter
No.Na.Ka.A/14/2018 dated 05.09.2019, and hence the petitioner
has come up with the present petition.

¶29

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the 3rd respondent had submitted a letter dated 05.09.2019 in
Na.Ka.No.14/2018 to the 4th respondent clearly stating that the
subject property belongs to the petitioner's husband, however,
the 5th respondent has stated contra to the same in its letter
dated 21.08.2019, which is an error apparent on the part of the
5th respondent and the same is vitiated by the non-application of
mind, arbitrary, besides being malafide and vindicate. The
failure on the part of the 5th respondent in not granting the
compensation for the acquired land had caused great prejudice to
the legal rights of the petitioner in the above mentioned
property.

¶30

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further
submitted that the petitioner will be satisfied if a direction
is issued to the 1st and 5th respondents to consider the
petitioner's representation dated 17.03.2021 and dispose of the
same within a stipulated time that may be framed by this Court.

¶31

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

¶32

6. Mr.V.Veluchamy, learned Government Advocate appearing
for the respondents 1 to 4 as well as Mr.Nithanandam, learned
standing counsel appearing for the 5threspondent, on
instructions from the officer of the respondents/Departments
submitted that a direction may be issued to the 1st respondent to
consider the prayer of the petitioner and twelve weeks time may
also be granted to the respondents to consider the same.

¶33

7. Having regard to the limited scope of the prayer that
is now sought for in this Writ Petition before this Court and
taking into account the submissions made on either side, without
expressing any opinion on the merits of the case pleaded by the
petitioner in the present writ petition, the Writ Petition is
disposed of, with a direction to the respondents 1 and 5 to
consider the petitioner's representation dated 17.03.2021 based
on the letter of the 3rd respondent in Na/Ka/A/14/2018 dated
05.09.2019 to the 4th respondent and pass appropriate orders, on
merits and in accordance with law within a period of twelve
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No
costs.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

Assistant Registrar(CS-V)

¶36

// True Copy //

¶37

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶38

ssd

¶39

To

¶40

1. The State of Tamilnadu rep. By its Secretary, Industries Department, Fort. St. George, Chennai

¶41

2. The District Collector, Cuddalore District

¶42

3. The Special Tahsildar No.3, Land Acquisition office, Neyveli – 2

¶43

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

¶44

4. The Special Deputy Collector,
 NLC India Limited
 Neyveli – 2 Tamilnadu

¶45

5. NLC India Limited

¶46

 rep. By the Chairman,
 Office of the General Manager,
 Land Acquisition and R& R department,
 Neyveli – 607 807.

¶47

+1cc to M/s.M.Velmurugan, Advocate, S.R.No.55965
+1cc to M/s.N.Nithianandam, Advocate, S.R.No.56551

¶48

+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.56674

¶49

W.P.No.23193 of 2021

¶50

KSM(CO)
RLP(23/11/2021)

¶51

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

K.Vasantha v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Vasantha v. The State of Tamil Nadu

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

C.kaveriyammal Vs the District Collector

Dhanapal Vs The Tahsildar

M/s.Bhoruka Steel and Services, Vs The Project Director

J.Sangunthala Vs The District Collector

K.Dhamodaran Vs The District Collector

Mrs.Saraswathi Vs The District Revenue Officer