Quashed

M.Karthikeyan v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC16 Nov 2022WP/3113/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-bench High Court of Madras held that land acquisition proceedings were void for substantial irregularity. The court found notices served on petitioners did not comply with Section 15(2) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act and Rule 5 of the 2003 Rules as they omitted survey numbers and land extents. Citing Periaswamy AIR 1984 MD 142, the court quashed the entire acquisition process for the propos

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions were allowed and the entire acquisition proceedings for the elevated corridor project were set aside and quashed.

M.Karthikeyan Vs The State of Tamil Nadu — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.No.3113, 8309, 8317 and 13058 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 16.11.2022

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU

¶7

Writ Petition Nos.3113, 8309, 8317 and 13058 of 2021 and connected Miscellaneous Petitions

¶8

WP No.3113 of 2021

¶9

M. Karthikeyan

¶10

L.Krishnakumari

¶11

G.R.V. Investments Private Limited Rep. by its Proprietor, Mr.G.V. Ramaswamy, 753, Avinashi Road, Peelamedu, Coimbatore 641 004.

¶12

G.V. Investments Private Limited

¶13

Rep. by its Proprietor,

¶14

Mr.G.V. Ramaswamy,

¶15

753, Avinashi Road, Peelamedu, Coimbatore 641 004.

¶16

G.K. Investments Private Limited

¶17

Rep. by its Proprietor,

¶18

Mr.G.V. Ramaswamy,

¶19

753, Avinashi Road, Peelamedu,

¶20

Coimbatore 641 004.

¶21

1/22

¶22

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

¶23

W.P.No.3113, 8309, 8317 and 13058 of 2021

¶24

P.R.Venkatachalam

¶25

Sivashanmugasundaram

¶26

M.V.Binni

¶27

...Petitioners

¶28

Vs.

¶29

1.The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Chief Secretary, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.

¶30

2.The Superintending Engineer, State Highways Department, Near North Kovai Fly Over, Mettupalayam Road, Combatore 641 043.

¶31

3.The District Collector, Coimbatore District Collector Office, Coimbatore 641 028.

¶32

The Commissioner, Corporation of Coimbatore, Corporation Office, Raja Street, Town Hall, Coimbatore 641 001 ...Respondents

¶33

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned newspaper publication of the 2nd respondent dated 11/12/2020 and subsequently issued impugned notice dated 23/12/2020 by the 3rd respondent to the petitioners and quash the

¶34

2/22

¶35

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

¶36

W.P.No.3113, 8309, 8317 and 13058 of 2021

¶37

same and further direct the respondents to immediately stop the implementation of the proposed project of the construction of a four - lane fly over on either side of the Avinashi Road Coimbatore.

¶38

For Petitioners : Mr.S.V. Pravin Rathinam

¶39

For Respondents : Mr.R.Shunmugasundaram Advocate General Assisted by Mr.K.V.Sajeevkumar Spl. Govt. Pleader, for RR 1 to 3

¶40

Mr.K.Magesh, for R4

¶41

WP No.8309 of 2021

¶42

N.Anand Pai 2. Rajesh B Lund ... Petitioners

¶43

Vs.

¶44

1.The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Chief Secretary, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.

¶45

The Secretary to Government, Highways and Minor Ports Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.

¶46

3.The Superintending Engineer, State Highways Department, Near North Kovai Fly Over, Mettupalayam Road, Combatore 641 043.

¶47

3/22

¶48

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

¶49

W.P.No.3113, 8309, 8317 and 13058 of 2021

¶50

4.The District Collector, Coimbatore District Collector Office, Coimbatore 641 018.

¶51

The Land Acquisition Officer cum District Revenue Officer, Coimbatore (South) Revenue Divisional Office, State Bank Road, Coimbatore 641 018.

¶52

KNR Constructions Limited, Rep. by its Managing Director, Mr.K.Narasimha Reddy, KNR House, 3^rd & 4^th Floor, Plot No.113 & 114, Phase 1, Kavuri Hills, Jubilee Hills Road No.36, Hyderabad 500 033. ...Respondents

¶53

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned Public Notice of the 5th Respondent Published in the newspaper “Dinamalar” Coimbatore Edition dated 11.12.2020 and Newspaper Publication in “The New Indian Express” Newspaper, Coimbatore Edition dated 13.02.2021, whereby 2nd Respondent notified the intended acquisition and quash the same and further direct the Respondents to immediately stop the implementation of the proposed project of the construction of a four lane fly over on either side of the Avinashi Road, Coimbatore.

¶54

For Petitioners : Mr.E.K.Kumaresan

¶55

4/22

¶56

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

¶57

W.P.No.3113, 8309, 8317 and 13058 of 2021

¶58

For Respondents : Mr.R.Shunmugasundaram Advocate General Assisted by Mr.K.V.Sajeevkumar Spl. Govt. Pleader, for RR 1 to 5

¶59

No appearance for R6

¶60

WP No.8317 of 2021

¶61

Mrs. Sarojini

¶62

Kamala Kannan G

¶63

G.Ravikumar

¶64

G.Gopal

¶65

M.Karthikeyan

¶66

Jaganathan Annalnaidu

¶67

R.Malar Bai

¶68

D.V.Ramakrishna Sah

¶69

... Petitioners

¶70

Vs.

¶71

1.The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Chief Secretary, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.

¶72

The Secretary to Government, Highways and Minor Ports Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.

¶73

3.The Superintending Engineer, State Highways Department, Near North Kovai Fly Over, Mettupalayam Road, Combatore 641 043.

¶74

5/22

¶75

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

¶76

W.P.No.3113, 8309, 8317 and 13058 of 2021

¶77

4.The District Collector, Coimbatore District Collector Office, Coimbatore 641 018.

¶78

The Land Acquisition Officer cum District Revenue Officer, Coimbatore (South) Revenue Divisional Office, State Bank Road, Coimbatore 641 018.

¶79

KNR Constructions Limited, Rep. by its Managing Director, Mr.K.Narasimha Reddy, KNR House, 3^rd & 4^th Floor, Plot No.113 & 114, Phase 1, Kavuri Hills, Jubilee Hills Road No.36, Hyderabad 500 033. ...Respondents

¶80

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned Public Notice of the 5th Respondent Published in the newspaper “Dhinamalar” Coimbatore Edition dated 11.12.2020 whereby 2nd Respondent notified the intended acquisition and quash the same and further direct the Respondents to immediately stop the implementation of the proposed project of the construction of a four lane fly over on either side of the Avinashi Road, Coimbatore.

¶81

For Petitioners : Mr.E.K.Kumaresan For Respondents : Mr.R.Shunmugasundaram Advocate General

¶82

6/22

¶83

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

¶84

W.P.No.3113, 8309, 8317 and 13058 of 2021

¶85

Assisted by Mr.K.V.Sajeevkumar Spl. Govt. Pleader, for RR 1 to 5

¶86

No appearance for R6

¶87

WP No.13058 of 2021

¶88

Senthil Chinnasamy

¶89

Dr.Sarveswaran

¶90

Mrs.A.Gowri

¶91

V.Lakshmi Narasimhaa

¶92

M/s.Rajshree Sugars and Chemicals Ltd., Rep. by its authorised Signatory, Mr.P.R.Sundaresan, No.338 Avinashi Road, Coimbatore 641 004.

¶93

M/s. Ellen Ferrous Castings Pvt Ltd., Rep by its Authorized Signatory, Mr.D.Vignesh, No.480-1,2,3, Avinashi Road, Coimbatore 641 004.

¶94

Vishnu Nischal Rajkumar

¶95

Mrs. Thulsi Rajkumar

¶96

M/s.Residency Towers, (Unit of SAS Residency Motels and Resorts Limited), Rep. by its Auhtorized Signatory, Mr.A.Srinivasan, No.1076,Avinashi Road, Coimbatore – 641 018.

¶97

Mr.N.Sridharan ... Petitioners

¶98

Vs.

¶99

7/22

¶100

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

¶101

W.P.No.3113, 8309, 8317 and 13058 of 2021

¶102

1.The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Chief Secretary, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.

¶103

The Secretary to Government, Highways and Minor Ports Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.

¶104

3.The Superintending Engineer, State Highways Department, Near North Kovai Fly Over, Mettupalayam Road, Combatore 641 043.

¶105

4.The District Collector, Coimbatore District Collector Office, Coimbatore 641 018.

¶106

The Land Acquisition Officer cum District Revenue Officer, Coimbatore (South) Revenue Divisional Office, State Bank Road, Coimbatore 641 018.

¶107

KNR Constructions Limited, Rep. by its Managing Director, Mr.K.Narasimha Reddy, KNR House, 3^rd & 4^th Floor, Plot No.113 & 114, Phase 1, Kavuri Hills, Jubilee Hills Road No.36, Hyderabad 500 033. ...Respondents

¶108

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the

¶109

8/22

¶110

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

¶111

W.P.No.3113, 8309, 8317 and 13058 of 2021

¶112

records pertaining to the Public Notice of the 5th Respondent Published in the “The New India Express” Coimbatore Edition dated 13.2.2021, Newspaper “Dhinamalar” Coimbatore Edition dated 11.12.2020, newspaper “Dhinamalar” Coimbatore Edition dated 15.2.2021 and newspaper “Dhinamalar” Coimbatore Edition dated 09.01.2021, whereby 2nd respondent notified the intended acquisition and quash the same and further direct the Respondents to immediately stop the implementation of the proposed project of the constructions of a fourlane fly over on either side of the Avinashi Road, Coimbatore.

¶113

For Petitioners : Mr.E.K.Kumaresan For Respondents : Mr.R.Shunmugasundaram Advocate General Assisted by Mr.K.V.Sajeevkumar Spl. Govt. Pleader, for RR 1 to 5

¶114

No appearance for R6

¶115

C O M M O N O R D E R

¶116

(Order of the Court was delivered by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.)

¶117

The petitioners challenge the proceedings for acquisition of their

¶118

land under the Tamilnadu Highways Act, for the purposes of construction of elevated corridor from Goldwins in Avinashi Salai to Uppilipalayam by the

¶119

9/22

¶120

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

¶121

W.P.No.3113, 8309, 8317 and 13058 of 2021

¶122

District Collector, Coimbatore.

¶123

2 . The petitioners would allege that they were not served with any notice as required under Section 15(2) of the Act read with Rule 5(1) of the

¶124

Tamil Nadu Highways Rules, 2003. It is the contention of the respondent that individual notices as required under Rule 5(2) were served and many of the petitioners appeared for the enquiry.

¶125

3 . A counter affidavit has been filed setting out the above contention and the documents have also been placed before us. The procedure for acquisition prescribed under an enactment, being an exercise of power of the eminent domain, will have to be scrupulously followed and any deviation thereof will have the effect of nullifying the entire process.

¶126

4 . Section 15 of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, sets out the

¶127

procedure for acquisition and the same reads as follows:

¶128

15. Power of acquire land: (1) If the Government are

¶129

satisfied that any land is required for the purpose of. any

¶130

10/22

¶131

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

¶132

W.P.No.3113, 8309, 8317 and 13058 of 2021

¶133

highway or for construction of bridges, culverts, causeways

¶134

or other structures thereon or for any purpose incidental or ancillary thereto, in furtherance of the objects of this Act, they may acquire such land by publishing in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette a notice specifying the description of such land and the particular purpose for which such land is required.

¶135

(2) Before publishing a notice under sub-section (1), the Government shall call upon the owner and any other person having interest in such land to show cause within such time as may be specified in the notice, why the land should not be acquired. The Government shall also cause a public notice to be given in such manner as may be prescribed.

¶136

(3) The Government may, after considering the cause, if any, shown by the owner or other person having interest on such land, pass such an order under sub-section (1), as they may deem fit.

¶137

11/22

¶138

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

¶139

W.P.No.3113, 8309, 8317 and 13058 of 2021

¶140

5 . There are other provisions relating to determination of compensation, payment of compensation and vesting of the land in the Department, upon issuance of the notification under Section 15(1), they are not very germane for our purposes. Rule 5 of the Tamil Nadu Highways Rules, which has a bearing on the issue, reads as follows:

¶141

5. Manner of publication of the public notice .---

¶142

Before publishing a notice under sub-section (1) of section 15, the Government or the Collector or the Special District Collector (Land Acquisition), Tamil Nadu Urban Development Project-III or the Special District Revenue Officer (Land Acquisition) as the case may be, shall in addition to calling upon the owner and any other person having interest in the land to show cause as to why the land should not be acquired, shall also cause a public notice to that effect to be published in one English and in one Tamil newspaper having circulation in the locality. The said notice shall also be displayed in the offices of the,---

¶143

(i) Highways Authority of the division concerned; (ii) Village Administrative Officer of the village concerned; and (iii) Tahsildar of the taluk concerned.

¶144

(2) If any objection is received from a person

¶145

12/22

¶146

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

¶147

W.P.No.3113, 8309, 8317 and 13058 of 2021

¶148

interested in the land within the time prescribed in the public notice issued under sub-section 2 of section 15, the Government or the Collector or the Special District Collector (Land Acquisition), Tamil Nadu Urban Development ProjectIII or the Special District Revenue Officer (Land Acquisition) as the case may be, shall fix a date for hearing the objections and give notice thereof to the objector as well as to the Highways Department. Copies of the objection shall 2 also be forwarded to the Highways Department. The Highways Department may file on or before the date fixed by the Government or the Collector or the Special District Collector (Land Acquisition), Tamil Nadu Urban Development ProjectIII or the Special District Revenue Officer (Land Acquisition) as the case may be, a statement by way of answer to the objections and may also depute a representative to attend the enquiry;

¶149

(3) On the date fixed for enquiry or any other date to which the enquiry may be adjourned, the Government or the Collector or the Special District Collector (Land Acquisition), Tamil Nadu Urban Development Project-III or the Special District Revenue Officer (Land Acquisition), as the case may be, shall hear the objector or a person authorised by him in this behalf and the representatives, if

¶150

13/22

¶151

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

¶152

W.P.No.3113, 8309, 8317 and 13058 of 2021

¶153

any, of the Highways Department and record any evidence that may be produced in support of the objection and in support of the need for acquiring the land;

¶154

(4) Where the enquiry is conducted by the Collector, on completion of enquiry, the Collector shall submit all the details of the enquiry to the Government to pass order under subsection(3) of the section 15;

¶155

(5) Where the enquiry is conducted by the Government , the Government will pass order under subsection(3) of section 15;

¶156

6 . While it is the contention of the petitioners that no notice was

¶157

served on them, the learned Special Government Pleader would submit that notices were served on them under proper acknowledgement. The notices purporting to contain the acknowledgements have been produced. On a perusal of the said notice, we find that the notice purports to be one under Section 15(2) read with Rule 5(1) and it reads as follows:

¶158

nfhak;g[j;J}h;. e/f/vz;/21508-2020-C5

¶159

14/22

¶160

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

¶161

W.P.No.3113, 8309, 8317 and 13058 of 2021

¶162

miHg;ghiz

¶163

bghUs;:- epy vLg;g[ - nfhak;g[j;J}h; khtl;lk; - nfhak;g[j;J}h; bjw;F tl;lk; - brshpghisak; fpuhkk; - thh;L vz;/27 gpshf; vz;/6.7.9.22.24.25.36.37 thh;L vz;/28. gpshf; vz;/1.2.9.43.44.45.50 mtpdhrp rhiyapy; nfhy;Ltpd;!; Kjy; cg;gpypghisak; tiuapy; jpl;lkplg;gl;Ls;s cah;j;jg;gl;l nkk;ghyk; gzpf;fhf epyk; ifafg;gLj;Jjy; - jkpH;ehL beL";rhiyfs; rl;lk; 2001 (j/eh/rl;lk; 34-02) rl;lg;gphpt[ 15(2)-,d; fPHhd mwptpf;if btspaplg;gl;lJ - jkpH;ehL beL";rhiyr;rl;lk; 2001 (j/eh/rl;lk; 34-02) gphpt[ 15(3)-d; fPHhd tprhuiz - bjhlh;ghf/ ghh;it:-^{1/ murhiz (vk;/v!;) vz;/119 beL rhiy (k) rpW} JiwKf';fs; (vr;/rpa{/2) Jiw. ehs;:- 30/11/2016/ 2/ murhiz (vk;/v!;) vz;/52 beL rhiy (k) rpW JiwKf';fs; (vr;/v!;/2) Jiw. ehs;:- 24/03/2020/ 3/ nfhak;g[j;J}h; beL";rhiyj;Jiw nfhl;lg;bghwpahsh; jpl;l';fs; nfhl;lk; foj vz;/ Elevated Highway/2016/JDO ehs;:-12.02.2020. 4. nfhak;g[j;J}h; bjw;F tl;lhl;rpahpd; foj vz;/3949-2020m2 ehs;:- 01/12/2020/ 5/ jkpH;ehL beL";rhiyr;rl;lk; 2001 gphpt[ (j/eh/rl;lk; 34-02) gphpt[ 15(2)-d; fPHhd mwptpf;if btspaplg;gl;l ehs;:11/12/2020/

¶164

¶165

nfhak;g[j;J}h; khtl;lk;. nfhak;g[j;J}h; bjw;F tl;lk;. Brshpghisak; fpuhkk;. thh;L vz;/27 gpshf; vz;/6.7.9.22.24.25.36.37 thh;L vz;/28. gpshf; vz;/ 1.2.9.43.44.45.50 nfhy;Ltpd;!; Kjy; cg;gpypghisak; tiuapy; jpl;lkplg;gl;Ls;s cah;j;jg;gl;l nkk;ghyk; gzpf;fhf epyk; vLg;g[ bra;tJ bjhlh;ghf jkpH;ehL beL";rhiyr;rl;lk; 2001 gphpt[ (j/eh/rl;lk; 34-02) gphpt[ 15(2)-d; fPHhd

¶166

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

¶167

W.P.No.3113, 8309, 8317 and 13058 of 2021

¶168

tprhuiz epybkLg;g[ mYtyh; kw;Wk; khtl;l tUhtha; mYtyh; mth;fspd; jiyikapy; nfhak;g[j;J}h; et ,e;jpah cwpe;J!;jhd; fy;Y}hp tshf fiyau';fj;jpyp; 12/01/2021 me;W Kw;gfy; 10/30 kzpf;F eilbgw cs;sJ/

¶169

nkw;go tprhuizapy; brshpghisak; fpuhk eph;thf mYtyh;. rp';fhey;Y}h; cs;tl;l tUtha; Ma;thsh; kw;Wk; efu rhh; Ma;thsh;. fpHf;F kz;lyk;. nfhak;g[j;J}h; khefuhl;rp Mfpnahh; chpa Mtz';fSld; fye;J bfhs;SkhW mwpt[Wj;j nfhak;g[j;J}h; bjw;F tl;lhl;rpah; nfl;Lf; bfhs;sg;gLfpwhh;/

¶170

khtl;l tUtha; mYtyh;

¶171

kw;Wk; epyvLg;g[ mYtyh;.

¶172

nfhak;g[;j;J}h;/

¶173

bgWeh ; :

¶174

tl;lhl;rpah;. Nfhak;g[j;J}h; bjw;F/

¶175

efy ; :

¶176

1/ fpuhk; eph;thf mYthh;. brshpghisak;/ 2/ cs;gl;l tUtha Ma;thsh;. rp';fhey;Y}h;/

¶177

3/ efu rhh; Ma;thsh;. fpHf;F kz;lyk;. nfhak;g[j;J}h; khefuhl;rp/

¶178

7 . No other notice was issued to any of the petitioners. We find

¶179

that these notices are not in compliance with the provisions of Section 15(2) or Rule 5 extracted above. The Survey Number and the extent of the land to be acquired from each of the land owners is absent in the notice. A reading

¶180

16/22

¶181

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

¶182

W.P.No.3113, 8309, 8317 and 13058 of 2021

¶183

of Section 15(2) along with Rule 5 would make it clear that what is contemplated is an individual notice setting out the details of the land that is sought to be acquired and fixing a time limit for submission of objections. Under Rule 5, if the objections are received within the time prescribed under Sub Section 2 of Section 15, the Authority is obliged to issue another notice fixing a day for hearing of the objections and thereafter conduct an enquiry. After the enquiry, the Authority will have to forward the recommendations to the Government to enable the Government to issue a notification under Section 15(1).

¶184

8 . Evidently this procedure has been given a go by. It is claimed

¶185

that notices have been issued to the individual land owners without specifying either the Survey Number or the extent of land that is to be acquired from them. Objections are not invited. A reading of the notice extracted above, shows that it is merely an invitation for a public hearing to be conducted by the Land Acquisition Officer in a Community Hall/College Auditorium. It is claimed that some of the petitioners had attended the meeting also. This process adopted by the respondents, in our considered

¶186

17/22

¶187

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

¶188

W.P.No.3113, 8309, 8317 and 13058 of 2021

¶189

opinion, will not satisfy the requirements of the statute.

¶190

9 . As already stated, the statute provides for a particular procedure to be followed and if the procedure is not followed, the land

¶191

acquisition proceedings will have to be set aside. In Periaswamy -Vs - The Special Tahsildar (Adi Dravidam Welfare) Vridhachalam and another

¶192

reported in AIR 1984 Madras 142, this court while considering the effect of omission of the word ‘Harijan’ in a notification issued under the Act 1 of 1894 had held as follows:

¶193

“ 7. The omission cannot but be characterised as

¶194

fatal to the acquisition proceedings. Courts have gone very far when serious omissions of this character have occurred. InGreen v.Wood, 1845-23 LJR 217 (Court of Queens Bench) Lord Denman, C.J. held (Pattenson, J. Williams, J. and Wightman, J. agreeing) at page 220—

¶195

“We cannot introduce a new provision into the Act, merely because we think those who framed it would have done so if the question had presented itself to them. It is the duty of Judges to confine themselves to the express provisions of acts of Parliament.”

¶196

Therefore, it is not even possible to contend that what the Government intended was something else than what has come

¶197

18/22

¶198

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

¶199

W.P.No.3113, 8309, 8317 and 13058 of 2021

¶200

to be expressed in the Section 4(1) notification and Section 6 declaration.

¶201

8. Even if it happened to be a clerical error, it is no function of this court to supply that clerical error and rectify the defect, because, it is ultimately the satisfaction of the Government while either issuing the Section 4(1) notification or the declaration under Section 6, that matters.”

¶202

Honourable Mr. Justice S.Mohan had also observed as follows:

¶203

“ 14. Before I part with this case, I may add that it is a great pity that when the Government was striving the best to better the lot of persons belonging to the downtrodden class, sufficient care has not been exercised, but for which things would not have come to such a pass. I cannot treat this as trifle; even so it is the trifle that makes much. I am only reminded of the poetic words:—

¶204

For want of a nail, the shoe was lost;

¶205

For want of a shoe, the horse was lost;

¶206

For want of a horse, the rider was lost;

¶207

For want of a rider, the battle was lost;

¶208

For want of a battle, the kingdom was lost.

¶209

And all for the want of a horse, shoe nail

¶210

— Franklin (Poor Richard's Almanac for 1758)”

¶211

19/22

¶212

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

¶213

W.P.No.3113, 8309, 8317 and 13058 of 2021

¶214

10 . We find that the said judgment will aptly apply to this case on

¶215

hand. We therefore have no other option, but, to set aside the entire acquisition proceedings. The Writ Petitions will stand allowed and the acquisition proceedings will stand quashed. It will be open to the respondents to relaunch the acquisition proceedings as per law if they are so advised. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶216

(R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.) (K.KUMARESH BABU,

¶217

J.)

¶218

16 . 11.2022

¶219

Index: Yes Internet: Yes Speaking Order jv

¶220

¶221

1.The Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.

¶222

20/22

¶223

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

¶224

W.P.No.3113, 8309, 8317 and 13058 of 2021

¶225

2.The Superintending Engineer, State Highways Department, Near North Kovai Fly Over, Mettupalayam Road, Combatore 641 043.

¶226

3.The District Collector, Coimbatore District Collector Office, Coimbatore 641 028.

¶227

The Commissioner, Corporation of Coimbatore, Corporation Office, Raja Street, Town Hall, Coimbatore 641 001.

¶228

The Secretary to Government, Highways and Minor Ports Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.

¶229

The Land Acquisition Officer cum District Revenue Officer, Coimbatore (South) Revenue Divisional Office, State Bank Road, Coimbatore 641 018.

¶230

21/22

¶231

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

¶232

W.P.No.3113, 8309, 8317 and 13058 of 2021

¶233

R.SUBRAMANIAN, J. and K.KUMARESH BABU, J.

¶234

¶235

Writ Petition Nos.3113, 8309, 8317 and 13058 of 2021 and connected Miscellaneous Petitions

¶236

16.11.2022 2/2

¶237

22/22

¶238

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

M.Karthikeyan v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Karthikeyan 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tamil Nadu Airport Workers Union Vs E.Deivasagayam

Church Of South India Trust Association Vs The District Revenue Officer

The Tamilnadu Housing Board Vs R.Rajaram

Meenakokila Vs the commissioner

N.Anand Pai Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Seetharaman Vs The State Human Rights