Allowed

Chandrasekaran v. Land Acquisition Officer

Madras HC1 Feb 2022CRP/229/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common order allowed multiple Civil Revision Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court directed the Principal District Judge, Salem to expedite and dispose of pending reference petitions regarding land acquisition compensation within two months, relying on a prior recorded settlement.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Principal District Judge, Salem to dispose of relevant RTROPs within two months. No costs.

Chandrasekaran Vs Land Acquisition Officer — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

C.R.P(PD)Nos.229 to 239, 241 to 246 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 01.02.2022

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN

¶6

C.R.P(PD).Nos.229 to 239, 241 to 246 of 2022

Chandrasekaran

..Petitioner

Vs.

1.Land Acquisition Officer, Salem Town, Salem.

¶11

Chinnasamy (Died)

¶12

2.C.Muralishankar

¶13

3.C.Santhosh ..Respondents

¶14

Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking to expedite the proceeding in RTROP.No.125 of 2021 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Salem.

¶15

For Petitioners : Mr.K.Govindarajan For Respondents : Mr.M.Bindran, Additional Government Pleader

¶16

for R1 in all CRPs

¶17

1/4

¶18

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

¶19

C.R.P(PD)Nos.229 to 239, 241 to 246 of 2022

¶20

C O M M O N O R D E R

¶21

Mr.M.Bindran takes notice for the 1^st respondent. Considering the

¶22

nature of the relief sought for, notice to the other respondents is dispensed with.

¶23

2.The petitioner seeks a direction for early disposal of the original petitions, which are references made by the Land Acquisition Officer in acquisition proceedings under Section 22 and 23 of the Tamilnadu Highways Act, 2001 on the ground that there are disputes regarding entitlement to the compensation. Those references have been numbered as RTROP.Nos.121 to 123 and 125 to 138 of 2021. Though the original petitions are of the year 2021, Mr.K.Govindarajan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in all these revisions would submit that the entire dispute has been settled before this Court in CRP.No.2662 of 2019 and a settlement has also been recorded by this Court by its order dated 16.02.2021. Therefore, all that is left for the Sub-Court to do is to direct issuance of cheques for the amounts deposited by the Land Acquisition Officer in favour of the claimants as per the order in

¶24

2/4

¶25

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

¶26

C.R.P(PD)Nos.229 to 239, 241 to 246 of 2022

¶27

CRP.No.2662 of 2019. It is also stated that the petitioner's factory premises is to be demolished and the petitioner has been forced to vacate the same.

¶28

3.In view of the same, these civil revision petitions are allowed with a direction to the Principal District Judge, Salem to dispose of RTROP.Nos.121 to 123, 125 to 138 of 2021 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

¶29

01.02.2022

¶30

kkn Index:No Internet:Yes Speaking

¶31

To-

¶32

The Principal District Court, Salem.

¶33

3/4

¶34

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

¶35

C.R.P(PD)Nos.229 to 239, 241 to 246 of 2022

¶36

R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.

¶37

KKN

¶38

C.R.P(PD).Nos.229 to 239, 241 to 246 of 2022

¶39

01.02.2022

¶40

4/4

¶41

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

Chandrasekaran v. Land Acquisition Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrasekaran v. Land Acquisition Officer

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

Paramasivam Vs M. Latha

Satya Priye Vs Rashmi Singh

Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Vs M.Faritha Begam

V.Pankajam Vs Sub Collector (Land Acquisition Officer)

D.Kethappan Vs Mrs.R.Jayanthi

B.Premkumar Vs R. Jayaraman