Allowed

S.Selvamani v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Madras HC25 Nov 2022WP(MD)/4812/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an order by the Revenue Divisional Officer seeking to recover alleged excess compensation paid under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The High Court set aside the order for violating principles of natural justice due to lack of notice and remanded the matter for a reasoned order.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order is set aside; the matter is remitted to the 1st respondent to provide due opportunity and pass a reasoned order within 12 weeks.

S.Selvamani Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.4812 of 2013

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 25.11.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶6

W.P(MD)No.4812 of 2013 and

¶7

M.P(MD)No.3 of 2013

1.S.Selvamani

2.T.Kalaimani

3.R.Mahalakshmi

... Petitioners

Vs.

1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Aruppukkottai.

¶14

2.The Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.

¶15

3.The District Collector, Virudhunagar.

¶16

... Respondents

¶17

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the 2^nd respondent issued in G.O.Ms.No.70 Revenue Department dated 30.01.2003, the clarification issued by the 2^nd

¶18

1/6

¶19

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

¶20

W.P(MD)No.4812 of 2013

¶21

respondent in his letter No.558/LA 1(1)/05-2 dated 11.03.2005 and the proceedings of the 1^st respondent Na.Ka.No.B2/S.R.9/05(28A) P.T.P dated 19.10.2012, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to disburse the compensation amounts together with all the statutory benefits due to the petitioners forthwith as held by Supreme Court in 2001(7) SCC 211 and 2006 (8) SCC 457.

¶22

For Petitioners : Mr.A.Sivaji

¶23

For Respondents : Mr.M.Lingadurai Special Government Pleader

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The present writ petition has been filed challenging an order passed by the 1^st respondent herein, under which the 1^st respondent has sought to recover the alleged excess compensation that has been paid to the writ petitioners under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

¶26

According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the

¶27

acquisition proceedings were completed and the petitioners had not sought for any reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Therefore, they have approached the respondent authorities for fixing the compensation under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. The

¶28

2/6

¶29

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

¶30

W.P(MD)No.4812 of 2013

¶31

authorities have also fixed the compensation under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act and they have disbursed the said amount. The claimants/land owners have been continuously making representation to the respondent authorities that they have erroneously fixed the compensation, which is not in consonance with the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The claimants/petitioners were demanding that additional amount has to be paid as compensation. The petitioners/claimants have given a representation to the 1^st respondent herein for re-calculating the compensation amount and pay the balance amount. For the said representation, the 1^st respondent has passed the impugned order stating that the already paid compensation is in excess of the amount that is due to the writ petitioners and he has sought to recover the excess amount from the writ petitioners under the impugned order. This order is under challenge in the present writ petition.

¶32

As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner,

¶33

this order of recovery of the alleged excess amount has been passed without issuing any notice to the writ petitioner and the same is in violation of the principles of natural justice.

¶34

3/6

¶35

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

¶36

W.P(MD)No.4812 of 2013

¶37

In view of the above said facts, the order impugned in the writ petition is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the file of the 1^st respondent herein. The 1^st respondent shall give due opportunity to the writ petitioners before arriving at the correct quantum of compensation as contemplated under the various provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. After giving due opportunity to the writ petitioners, the 1^st respondent shall pass a reasoned order, after considering the objections raised by the writ petitioners. The 1^st respondent shall also consider the fact that whether any lesser amount has been paid to the writ petitioners. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶38

With the above said observations, this Writ Petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶39

25.11.2022

¶40

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No gbg

¶41

4/6

¶42

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

¶43

W.P(MD)No.4812 of 2013

¶44

¶45

1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Aruppukkottai.

¶46

2.The Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.

¶47

3.The District Collector, Virudhunagar.

¶48

5/6

¶49

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

¶50

W.P(MD)No.4812 of 2013

¶51

R.VIJAYAKUMAR ,J.

¶52

gbg

¶53

Order made in W.P(MD)No.4812 of 2013

¶54

Dated: 25.11.2022

¶55

6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

S.Selvamani v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Selvamani v. the Revenue Divisional 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

M.Mookiah, Vs District Revenue Officer

R. Panner Selvam, Vs Chief Controlling Revenue

K.Krishnan, Vs the Inspector General of

C.Sangaiah, S/O.Chinna Thevar Vs the District Collector

A.Kannan, Vs the Government of Tamil Nadu

S.Selvarani Sridevi, Vs the Inspector of Panchayat