Allowed

Govindammal v. the Project Director

Madras HC14 Jun 2022WP(MD)/8941/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed writ petitions challenging the rejection of compensation claims by petitioners. It held that while government land attracts no compensation, petitioners are entitled to compensation for structures they built at their own cost in assigned land.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside to the extent of denying compensation for structures. Second respondent directed to recommend compensation for superstructures to the first respondent.

Govindammal Vs the Project Director — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.(MD).No.8941 of 2011

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 14.06.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶6

W.P.(MD).Nos.8941 & 8942 of 2011

¶7

W.P.(MD).No.8941 of 2011

¶8

Govindammal ... Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

The Project Director, National Highways Authority of India, Project Implementation Unit, No.54, (First Floor), Natarajapuram North Colony, Medical College Road, Thanjavur – 4.

¶11

The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) Unit-I, In charge of National Highways-67, Thanjavur.

¶12

... Respondents

¶13

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 in pursuant to the impugned order passed by the second respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.30 of 2007 Unit-I order dated 22.11.2010 and quash the same and consequently to direct the respondents to pay the compensation in favour of the petitioner.

¶14

W.P.(MD).No.8942 of 2011

¶15

Kamala ... Petitioner

¶16

Vs.

¶17

The Project Director, National Highways Authority of India, Project Implementation Unit, No.54, (First Floor), Natarajapuram North Colony, Medical College Road,

¶18

Thanjavur – 4. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶19

1/3

¶20

W.P.(MD).No.8941 of 2011

¶21

The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) Unit-I, In charge of National Highways-67, Thanjavur. ... Respondents

¶22

¶23

(In both cases) For Petitioner : Mr.R.Udhayakumar For R1 : Mr.Arulvadivel @ Sekar For R2 : Mr.N.Muthuvijayan Special Government Pleader

¶24

ORDER

¶25

Both the writ petitions have been filed challenging an order passed by the second respondent, under which the request of the petitioners seeking compensation for the land and building acquired by National Highways Department has been rejected.

¶26

The writ petitioners are admittedly landless poor in whose favour already lands have been assigned by the State Government. In the assigned lands, writ petitioners have put up constructions at their own cost. Now the lands have been acquired by the first respondent herein. In view of the acquisition proceedings, the petitioners have not only lost their assigned lands but also the constructions put up by them over the said assigned lands. Hence they requested the second respondent, who is the acquisition Officer to recommend to the first respondent for grant of compensation. The said request of the petitioners have been rejected by the second respondent on the ground that the land belongs to the Government and hence they are not entitled to any compensation either for the land or for the constructions put up by the petitioners in the said lands. The said order is under challenge in both the writ petitions.

¶27

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the respondents.

¶28

The learned Counsel for the petitioner had contended that though the land belongs to the Government and it was assigned in favour of the writ petitioners, admittedly the constructions in the said assigned property had been made by the writ petitioners at their own cost and hence they would be entitled to seek compensation

¶29

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

¶30

2/3

¶31

W.P.(MD).No.8941 of 2011

¶32

from the first respondent herein. However, the learned Counsel for the respondent pointed out that since the land belongs to the Government and it is a Government Poramboke Adidravidar Natham, the petitioners would not be entitled to any compensation whatsoever. I have carefully considered the submissions made on either side.

¶33

Though the land belongs to the Government, the petitioners have put up constructions at their own cost in the above said assigned properties. Hence, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the petitioners would be entitled to claim compensation for the constructions put up by them in the said assigned properties. Since the land belongs to the Government, the petitioners would not be entitled to seek any compensation with regard to the land in dispute. The impugned order is set aside to the extent as stated above. The second respondent is directed to recommend to the first respondent with regard to compensation of the super structure put up by the petitioners in the respective cases.

¶34

With the above said observations, both the Writ Petitions stands allowed. No costs.

¶35

// True Copy //

¶36

/ /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶37

jbr

¶38

To 1 The Project Director, National Highways Authority of India, Project Implementation Unit, No.54, (First Floor), Natarajapuram North Colony, Medical College Road, Thanjavur – 4.

¶39

2 The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) Unit-I, In charge of National Highways-67, Thanjavur. +1 CC to M/s.SPL.GP ( SR-25836[F] dated 15/06/2022 )

¶40

Order made in W.P.(MD).No.8941 & 8942 of 2011 14.06.2022

¶41

MK/27.06.2022/3P/4C

¶42

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

¶43

3/3

Govindammal v. the Project Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Govindammal v. the Project Director

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/S. Paprika Oleos (India) Ltd. Vs the District Collector

Y. Sathianesan, Vs Secretary to Government

The Rajaratna Mills Pvt. Ltd., Vs Tamil Nadu Generation and

R. Srinivasan, Vs the Secretary to Government

S. Alagumalai, Vs the District Collector

Glory Vs District Collector/