The petitioner sought a writ for reconveyance of land acquired for National Highway purposes. The Court held that the petitioner is not the land owner and lacks locus standi, as the actual owner's earlier petition was dismissed as withdrawn. The writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P(MD)No.7559 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 04.07.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
W.P(MD)No.7559 of 2022 and W.M.P.(MD)No.5728 of 2022
R.Ramachandran
... Petitioner
Vs.
Melur, Madurai District.
Madurai District. ... Respondents
1/4
W.P(MD)No.7559 of 2022
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 pertaining to the order passed by the 1st respondent A.P.No. 202/MLR/Karungalakudi/2007/B8 dated 08.01.2014 and direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for reconveyance of our land in Karungalakudi Village, Melur Taluk, Madurai District in New Survey No. 589/1A an extent of 102 square meters, new survey No.589/4 an extent of 1836 square meters and new survey No.589/3B1 an extent of 220 square meters and new survey No.589/3C1 an extent of 269 square meters acquired as per the proceedings in ROC.No.B7/8335/2022 dated 11.10.2006 of the 2nd respondent.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Arunnithy
For Respondents : Mr.N.Ramesh Arumugam, Govt. Advocate for R1, R2, R4 & R5. MrC.Arulvaivel @ Sekar for R3.
ORDER
The petitioner seeks reconveyance of the lands that were acquired under the National Highways Act. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner raised interesting arguments. Before I could go into the matter, the learned standing counsel for the third respondent drew my attention to the averment made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. It is seen that the petitioner is not the land owner. The actual land owner is his grandmother D.Panaiyammal. She filed W.P(MD)No.16439 of 2014 seeking reconveyance. The said writ
W.P(MD)No.7559 of 2022
petition was dismissed as withdrawn as 30.09.2020. When the original land owner herself did not pursue the matter, the question of the petitioner taking up the cause does not arise at all. The writ petitioner does not have the locus standi as of now. The writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
04.07.2022
Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No ias
To:
3/4
W.P(MD)No.7559 of 2022
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
ias
W.P(MD)No.7559 of 2022
04.07.2022
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petitioner, who is not the land owner, has locus standi to seek reconveyance of the acquired land.
Whether the writ petition filed by the petitioner is maintainable in the present facts.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
R. Ramachandran
The District Collector
The Project Director, National Highways Authority of India
The Special Tahsildar, For Land Acquisition
The Tahsildar, Melur
G.R. Swaminathan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
