Dismissed

Y.Jagadeesa Thilagan v. The Special District Revenue officer (La)

Madras HC25 Feb 2022WP/2176/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging the failure of land acquisition authorities to act on a compensation claim. The High Court found the petitioner's claim was based on a Power of Attorney subsequently revoked by the purported owner. The Court held the Court was not the appropriate forum to decide the dispute over proprietary rights.

What did the court decide?

None. Directions given to approach the Civil Court to redress the relief.

Y.Jagadeesa Thilagan Vs The Special District Revenue officer… — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 25.02.2022

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. DHANDAPANI

¶5

W.P. NO.2176 OF 2022 AND W.M.P.NO.2342 OF 2022

¶6

Y.Jagadesa Thilagan ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The Special District Revenue Officer (LA), National Highways, Kanchipuram and Thiruvallur Districts, Mamallapuram-Puducherry Corridor,

¶9

NH-332A, No.16, Varadharajan Street,

¶10

Vedhachala Nagar, Chengalpattu-603001.

¶11

Santhi Alias Santhi Anbalagan ... Respondents

¶12

Prayer :

¶13

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1^st respondent to provide the any compensation payable on account of Notification No.461 dated 02.05.2019 in respect of lands in Survey No.287/5B, Paramanakeni Village, Cheyyur Taluk, Chengalpet District to petitioner herein considering his representation dated 28.12.2021.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Sakthivel

¶15

For R2 : Mr.Shah & Shah

¶16

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the 1^st respondent to provide the any compensation payable on account of Notification No.461 dated

¶17

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

¶18

02.05.2019 in respect of lands in Survey No.287/5B, Paramanakeni Village, Cheyyur Taluk, Chengalpet District to petitioner herein, considering his representation dated 28.12.2021.

¶19

The learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice

¶20

for the official respondents. Since no adverse order is being passed against the private respondent, notice to the private respondent is dispensed with.

¶21

The case of the petitioner is that the 2^nd respondent is the owner of the property in Survey No.287/5B, Paramanakeni Village, Cheyyur Taluk, Chengalpet District. She received Rs.23,00,000/- from the petitioner and executed a Power of Attorney dated 24.11.2021, including the right to approach the land acquisition authorities and executed a cash receipt also. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the 1^st respondent on 25.11.2021 and prepared the entire compensation proceedings before the authority in order to receive compensation. At that time, the second respondent issued a legal notice to cancel the Power of Attorney and resisted the petitioner to receive the compensation from the National Highways authorities. Challenging the same petitioner made a representation to the first respondent on 02.05.2019. However, till date, no orders have been passed. Hence, this writ petition is filed.

¶22

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has obtained the cash receipt from the second respondent, which shows the interest over the property. The interested persons are entitle to receive the compensation under the National Highways Act. He also submitted that it would suffice if this Court issues a direction to the 1^st respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 02.05.2019 in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders within a particular time frame that may be fixed by this Court.

¶23

The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the 1^st respondent submits that the petitioner's interest was executed by the second respondent and thereafter, since the petitioner's interest as against securing Power of Attorney was cancelled now when there is no acquired right to the petitioner to receive the compensation from the authorities and it is not a sustainable one. The petitioner is not the lawful owner before the Revenue Authorities.

¶24

The facts in the present case are not disputed. Admittedly, the petitioner claims that he process the compensation procedure before the authorities on the basis of the Power of Attorney and subsequently, Power of Attorney was canceled by the second respondent and the petitioner has no right to proceed against the second respondent and he has to

¶25

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

¶26

approach the competent Civil Court to redress his relief and not before this Court, since the dispute that arises in the case cannot be decided by the National Highways authorities.

¶27

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a

¶28

direction to the petitioner to work out his remedy in the manner known to law. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Sd/-

Assistant Registrar

//True Copy//

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶33

Psa

¶34

¶35

The Special District Revenue Officer (LA), National Highways, Kanchipuram and Thiruvallur Districts, Mamallapuram-Puducherry Corridor, NH-332A, No.16, Varadharajan Street, Vedhachala Nagar, Chengalpattu-603001.

¶36

+1cc to Mr.K.Sakthivel, Advocate, S.R.No.13531 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.13370

¶37

W.P. No.2176 of 2022

¶38

SVI(CO) PM/17/03/2022

¶39

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

Y.Jagadeesa Thilagan v. The Special District Revenue officer (La)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Y.Jagadeesa Thilagan v. The Special District Revenue officer (La)

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

T.K.Devaraj Vs the District Revenue Officer

M.Kamaraj, Vs the District Collector

R.Saravanan Vs The District Collector

K.Gopal Vs Supriya Sahu IAS

V.S.Loganathan Vs The Inspector General of Registration

Great Lakes Multi State Co-operative Housing Society Limited Vs Mr.M.Saravanan