Dismissed

Mr.a.v.Arunachalam v. the Secretary to Govt.

Madras HC7 Sept 2023WA/1013/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras disposed of an intra-court writ appeal against an order on land acquisition compensation. While the respondents claimed full compensation was deposited under the 1894 Act, the Court, without assessing merit, granted the appellant liberty to seek enhancement of compensation under the 2013 Act if eligible, before dismissing the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to approach authority for enhancement of compensation under the 2013 Act; Writ Appeal and CMP dismissed.

Mr.a.v.Arunachalam Vs the Secretary to Govt. — Execution and Attachment | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.A.No.1013 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 07.09.2023

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI

W.A.No.1013 of 2017

Mr.A.V.Arunachalam

.. Appellant

The Secretary to Government Public Works Department (Highways) Fort St.George

¶13

Chennai 600 009

¶14

The Revenue Divisional Officer Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer Chengalpattu

¶15

The Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) Poonamallee

¶16

Chennai

¶17

The Divisional Engineer Highways Department Chengalpattu Tamil Nadu 603 001

¶18

Page 1 of 6

¶19

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

¶20

W.A.No.1013 of 2017

¶21

The Chief Executive Officer Tamil Nadu Road Development Company Ltd., No.346, Sindu Pantheon Plaza Pantheon Road Egmore, Chennai 600 008 .. Respondents

¶22

Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order dated 19.08.2015 made in W.P.No.27190 of 2014.

¶23

For Appellant :: Mr.T.Thiageswaran for M/s Waraon and Sai Rams

¶24

For Respondents :: Mr.S.Silambanan Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.U.M.Ravichandran Special Government Pleader for R1 to R4 Mr.S.Sivavarthanan for R5

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

(Judgment of the Court was made by D.KRISHNAKUMAR,J.)

¶27

The instant intra-Court appeal is directed against the order dated

¶28

19.08.2015 passed in Writ Petition No.27190 of 2014.

¶29

Although the appellant/writ petitioner unsuccessfully challenged

¶30

the acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents in respect of the

¶31

Page 2 of 6

¶32

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

¶33

W.A.No.1013 of 2017

¶34

land to an extent of 0.05.0 Hectares comprised in Survey No.86/1B owned

¶35

by the appellant/writ petitioner situated at Kannattur Reddy Kuppam Village, Kancheepuram District for the purpose of widening of the East Coast Road to four lanes from two lanes, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that since the respondents have already taken possession of the property in question during the pendency of the appeal, the learned counsel sought for granting liberty to the appellant to approach the authority concerned seeking for enhancement of the compensation under Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, if he is eligible.

¶36

However, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 submitted that the compensation amount has already been deposited under Section 30 & 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in respect of the entire extent acquired from the appellant/writ petitioner.

¶37

Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the contentions raised

¶38

_____________ Page 3 of 6_

¶39

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

¶40

W.A.No.1013 of 2017

¶41

before us, we only grant liberty to the appellant to approach the authority concerned seeking for enhancement of the compensation amount and if any such application is received, the same may be considered by the authority concerned on its own merits and in accordance with the statutory provisions of law, if he is otherwise entitled to. With the aforesaid liberty, the writ appeal stands dismissed. Consequently, C.M.P.No.14275 of 2017 is also dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶42

(D.K.K.,J.) (P.B.B,J.) Index : yes/no 07.09.2023 Neutral citation : yes/no

¶43

¶44

¶45

The Secretary to Government Public Works Department (Highways) Fort St.George Chennai 600 009

¶46

The Revenue Divisional Officer Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer Chengalpattu

¶47

_____________ Page 4 of 6_

¶48

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

¶49

W.A.No.1013 of 2017

¶50

The Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) Poonamallee Chennai

¶51

The Divisional Engineer Highways Department Chengalpattu Tamil Nadu 603 001

¶52

The Chief Executive Officer Tamil Nadu Road Development Company Ltd., No.346, Sindu Pantheon Plaza Pantheon Road Egmore, Chennai 600 008

¶53

Page 5 of 6

¶54

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

¶55

W.A.No.1013 of 2017

D.KRISHNAKUMAR,J.

AND P.B.BALAJI,J.

W.A.No.1013 of 2017

07.09.2023

_____________ Page 6 of 6_

¶62

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

Mr.a.v.Arunachalam v. the Secretary to Govt.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.a.v.Arunachalam v. the Secretary to Govt.

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

The Assistant Commissioner of Vs Managalam

The Member Secretary Vs K. Ponnammal

V.Anandakumar Vs the District Collector

S.Karthikeyan Vs the Chairman

G.K.Alloys Steels Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Chairman

The Management Committee Vs the Tamilnadu Wakf Board