Allowed

S.Rajeswari, W/O.Seethapathi v. the District Collector

Madras HC21 Dec 2022WP(MD)/10195/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that taking over property to lay a road without consent and without invoking the Land Acquisition Act requires payment of appropriate compensation. The petition was allowed to direct the determination and payment of compensation within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direct the District Revenue Officer to complete an enquiry and District Collector to disburse compensation within eight weeks.

S.Rajeswari, W/O.Seethapathi Vs the District Collector — Property and Title | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.10195 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 21.12.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

W.P(MD)No.10195 of 2019

1.S.Rajeswari

2.K.Anusya

... Petitioners

Vs.

1.The District Collector, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

¶12

2.The District Revenue Officer, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

¶13

3.The Thasildar, Sivakasi.

¶14

4.The Commissioner, Sivakasi Municipality, Sivakasi. ... Respondents

¶15

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to fix the compensation for the road laid in the respective petitioners' property in plot Nos.10, 11 and 12 in Ward A, Block No.1, T.S.No. 36 at Sivakasi to an extent

¶16

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

¶17

1/4

¶18

W.P(MD)No.10195 of 2019

¶19

of 3956 sq.ft. as per the market value and consequently disburse the same to the petitioners along with interest, solatium, additional amount and interest as provided under the land Acquisition Act 1894.

¶20

For Petitioners : Mr.A.Sivaji

¶21

For Respondents : Mr.A.K.Manikkam, Spl. Government Pleader for R1 to R3. Mrs.S.Devasena, Standing Counsel for R4.

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

¶24

2.It is not in dispute that the petitioners' property was taken over and road

¶25

laid thereon without getting the petitioners' consent. The respondents have also not invoked the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Therefore, the respondents are obliged to pay appropriate compensation to the petitioners herein. The compensation will have to be determined as per the statutory scheme set out in the Old Act. The petitioners are entitled not only to market value that was prevailing on the date of taking over possession but also interest and solatium. Whatever benefits that may be available to the petitioners will have be disbursed.

¶26

2/4

¶27

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

¶28

W.P(MD)No.10195 of 2019

¶29

3.I am shocked to hear that even though dispossession had taken place

¶30

way back in the year 2008, for the last 14 years, the petitioners have not been paid single paisa towards compensation. The learned standing counsel for the fourth respondent produced copy of the communication dated 12.12.2022 addressed by the fourth respondent to the second respondent seeking fixation of the value. The second respondent shall complete the enquiry after hearing the petitioners herein. Based on the valuation made by the second respondent, the fourth respondent shall disburse the compensation amount without any delay thereafter. If the petitioners are aggrieved by the quantum fixed by the second respondent, it is open to the petitioners herein to seek enhancement in the manner known to law. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶31

4.The writ petition is allowed accordingly. No costs.

¶32

21.12.2022

¶33

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No ias

¶34

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

¶35

3/4

¶36

W.P(MD)No.10195 of 2019

¶37

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

¶38

ias

¶39

To:

¶40

1.The District Collector, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

¶41

2.The District Revenue Officer, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

¶42

3.The Thasildar, Sivakasi.

¶43

W.P(MD)No.10195 of 2019

¶44

21.12.2022

¶45

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

¶46

4/4

S.Rajeswari, W/O.Seethapathi v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Rajeswari, W/O.Seethapathi v. the District Collector

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

Sahul Hameed Vs the District Collector

Jesu Rathinam Vs Vasantha

Apex Heart Hospital Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Secretary Member

A.Umadevi Vs the Chairman

Muthulakshmi(Deceased), Vs the Commissioner

Subramanian Vs the District Revenue Officer