Disposed

K.Velmurugan, v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC23 Dec 2021WP/29681/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging demolition of flats, the Court ordered survey and demarcation of acquired land. Authorities were directed to proceed with project implementation and pay compensation. Petitioners were given liberty to claim enhancement.

What did the court decide?

Direct respondents to proceed with project implementation, pay compensation, and permit petitioners to withdraw deposited compensation or seek enhancement.

K.Velmurugan, Vs The State of Tamil Nadu — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 23.12.2021

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶5

W.P.No.29681 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2014

¶6

1.K.Velmurugan 2.S.Muthu Mariappan 3.R.R.Venkatesan 4.S.R.Amirthaganesan 5.N.Ramanujam 6.B.K.Jayalakshmi ...Petitioners Vs.

¶7

1.The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Secretary to Government Housing & Urban Development Department Fort St. George, Secretariat Chennai 600 088

¶8

2.The District Collector Kancheepuram District Kancheepuram

¶9

3.The Land Acquisition Officer-cumSpeed Tahsildar MRTS, II Extension Mylapore Chennai 600 004

¶10

4.The Deputy Chief Engineer-I Metropolitan Transport Project (Railways), Southern Railways, Mylpore, Chennai-4 [R4 impleaded as per Order dated 23.07.2015 in M.P.No.1 of 2015 in W.P.No.29681 of 2014]

¶11

...Respondents

¶12

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents herein, their men, agents, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ servants, subordinates or any other person or persons claiming

¶13

through them or authorized by them from, in any manner, interfering with or demolishing the Flats of the petitioners, viz. Flat Nos.G-1 to G-4 and F-1 to F-4 respectively in Sree Balaji Flats, Situate at Plot No.13, 36^th Street, Thillaiganga Nagar, Nanganallur, Chennai-600 061, comprised in T.S.No.66/3 in Adambakkam Village, Alandur Municipaltiy, (now Corporation of Chennai), Kancheepuram District.

¶14

For Petitioners : Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan

¶15

Senior Counsel

¶16

for Ms.AL.Ganthimathi

¶17

For R1 and R2 : Mr.T.Venkatesh Kumar Special Government Pleader

¶18

For R3 : Mr.P.Kumaresan Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mrs.Veena Suresh

¶19

For R4 : Mr.P.T.Ram Kumar

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The relief sought for in the present writ petition is to forbear the the respondents herein, their men, agents, servants, subordinates or any other person or persons claiming through them or authorized by them from, in any manner, interfering with or demolishing the Flats of the petitioners, viz. Flat Nos.G-1 to G-4 and F-1 to F-4 respectively in Sree Balaji Flats, Situate at Plot No.13, 36^th Street, Thillaiganga Nagar, Nanganallur, Chennai-600 061, comprised in T.S.No.66/3 in Adambakkam Village, Alandur Municipaltiy, (now Corporation of Chennai), Kancheepuram District.

¶22

The learned senior counsel appearing appearing on behalf of the petitioners mainly contended that without following the due process of law, an attempt has been made by the respondents to demolish the flats belongs to the petitioners. The proposed MRTS project approved by the Union and State Government and accordingly the implementation commenced. Lands were acquired and compensations are also paid in accordance with law.

¶23

However, the petitioners raised an objection that demarcations were not made properly and there are ambiguities in the matter of measuring the particular portion of the land and thus, they are constrained to move the present writ petition.

¶24

In view of the allegations and apprehensions raised by the petitioners, this Court summoned the officials and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ directed them to measure and mark the portions, which all are

¶25

acquired for implementation of the MRTS project. Accordingly, the competent authorities conducted survey, measured the land and demarcated the area needed for the implementation of the MRTS project and the portions earmarked were also intimated to the petitioners, other owners and occupants, who all are in possession of the subject property. This being the exercise done by the competent authorities, this court is of an opinion that the respondents shall proceed in accordance with law for settlement of compensation and implementation of the project in the interest of public without causing any undue delay.

¶26

In this regard, the respondents are directed to proceed with the process to be completed and consequently, pay the compensation. In the event that the compensation had already been deposited, the petitioners may be permitted to withdraw the said compensation for which they are entitled. The petitioners are at liberty to seek enhancement or otherwise, if they have chosen to do so.

¶27

With this liberty, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶28

Sd/-

¶29

Assistant Registrar(CS-VI)

¶30

//True copy//

¶31

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶32

Jeni/Cse

¶33

¶34

1.The Secretary to Government, The State of Tamil Nadu, Housing & Urban Development Department, Fort St. George, Secretariat, Chennai 600 088.

¶35

2.The District Collector, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram.

¶36

3.The Land Acquisition Officer-cumSpeed Tahsildar, MRTS, II Extension, Mylapore, Chennai 600 004.

¶37

4.The Deputy Chief Engineer-I, Metropolitan Transport Project (Railways), Southern Railways, Mylpore,

¶38

Chennai-4. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶39

+1cc to Mr.P.T.Ram Kumar, Advocate SR.No.69646 +1cc to Mrs.Veena Suresh, Advocate SR.No.69457

¶40

+1cc to Mr.AL.Ganthimathi, Advocate SR.No.69715

¶41

+1cc to Government Pleader SR.No.69810

¶42

W.P.No.29681 of 2014

¶43

SSI(CO) GMY(07/01/2022)

¶44

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

K.Velmurugan, v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Velmurugan, 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

North Korattur Tvs Nagar Vs The Member Secretary

Als Constructions, Vs The Project Director

Immaculate Heart of Mary Vs The Union Territory of

M/S.Elgi Rubber Company Vs the Secretary to Government

R.Jayamani Vs The State of Tamilnadu

Grama Ezhai Mattrumthikkatror Vs the District Social Welfare