Disposed

K.Balakrishnan v. The special Tahsildar

Madras HC20 Dec 2021WP/27016/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, by Writ Petition No. 27016 of 2021, directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 22.08.2021, afford an opportunity of hearing, and pass orders on the merits regarding the determination of land acquisition compensation within twelve weeks as per the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act 1997, without expressing an opinion on the mer

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to consider representation, provide opportunity of hearing, and pass orders on merits within twelve weeks.

K.Balakrishnan Vs The special Tahsildar — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 20.12.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶5

W.P.No.27016 of 2021

¶6

K.Balakrishnan ... Petitioner

¶7

-Vs-

¶8

The Special Tahsildar (LA), SIPCOT Unit - 3, Sriperumbudur Expansion Scheme- II, Sriperumbudur.

¶9

The Special District Revenue Officer (LA), SIPCOT, Oragadam and Sriperumbudur, Expansion Scheme-II, Sriperumbudur.

¶10

The District Collector, Kancheepuram District. ... Respondents

¶11

Prayer :- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 22.08.2021 and refer the matter of determination of compensation amount to the Competent Civil Court as per Section 8 of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act 1997.

¶12

For Respondents: Mr.G.Ameedius Government Advocate.

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This Writ Petition has been filed for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 22.08.2021 and refer the matter of determination of compensation amount to the Competent Civil Court as per Section 8 of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act 1997.

¶15

Heard Mr.G.Adithya Raj, learned counsel appearing for

¶16

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

¶17

the petitioner and Mr.G.Ameedius, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

¶18

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the

¶19

writ petition, the respondents are directed to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 22.08.2021, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, pass 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.

¶20

With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶21

Sd/-

¶22

Assistant Registrar(CS-IX)

¶23

//True Copy//

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶25

¶26

¶27

The Special Tahsildar (LA), SIPCOT Unit - 3, Sriperumbudur Expansion Scheme- II, Sriperumbudur.

¶28

The Special District Revenue Officer (LA), SIPCOT, Oragadam and Sriperumbudur, Expansion Scheme-II, Sriperumbudur.

¶29

The District Collector, Kancheepuram District.

¶30

+1cc to M/s.P.Wilson Associates, Advocate, S.R.No.68410 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.69062

¶31

W.P.No.27016 of 2021 SSD(CO)

¶32

SB(04/01/2022)

¶33

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

K.Balakrishnan v. The special Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Balakrishnan v. The special Tahsildar

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

B.Gopinath Vs Sameeran IAS

Yadhumoor Tamilarasan Vs Mr. Rajkumar

S.Dhanapal Vs The Tahsildhar

R.Selvaraj Vs The District Collector

B.G.Krishnan Vs The Inspector General of Registration

Sundara Raju Vs The Distirct Collector