Dismissed

K.v.Sadasivam v. The District Collector

Madras HC3 Jul 2023WA/1355/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition for enhanced compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the High Court of Madras held that the standard laid down in Vidya Devi did not apply since compensation had already been paid. The court upheld the dismissal of the appeal due to the excessive delay of 45 years.

What did the court decide?

The appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent was dismissed; no order as to costs.

K.v.Sadasivam Vs The District Collector — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.A.No.1355 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 03.07.2023

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU

¶8

W.A.No.1355 of 2023

¶9

K.V.Sadasivam .. Appellant

¶10

¶11

1 The District Collector

¶12

Salem District.

¶13

2 The Project Director National Highways Authority of India (NH 68) 212-3 / D-31 Srinagar Colony

¶14

Narasothipatty, Salem - 636 004.

¶15

3 The Competent Authority and Spl. District Revenue Officer (Land Acquisition) 3-B/8, Ram Nagar, 2nd Gate Swarnapuri, Salem District.

¶16

4 The Land Acquisition Officer and Special Thasildar (NA) National Highways Salem – 1.

¶17

.. Respondents

¶18

Prayer: Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order 9.11.2021 passed in W.P.No.16568 of 2021 by the learned

¶19

Page 1 of 6

¶20

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

¶21

W.A.No.1355 of 2023

¶22

Single Judge.

¶23

For the Appellant : Mr.Ganapathy Thangavel For the Respondents : Mr.P.Muthukumar State Government Pleader assisted by Mrs.R.Anitha Special Government Pleader for Respondents 1, 3 and 4 : Mr.Su.Srinivasan for 2^nd respondent

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

(Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶26

Heard Mr.Ganapathy Thangavel, learned counsel for the appellant; Mr.P.Muthukumar, learned State Government Pleader, assisted by Mrs.R.Anitha, learned Special Government Pleader, for respondents 1, 3 and 4; and Mr.Su.Srinivasan, learned counsel for the second respondent.

¶27

The appellant had filed a writ petition claiming enhanced amount of compensation. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the appellant has approached the

¶28

Page 2 of 6

¶29

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

¶30

W.A.No.1355 of 2023

¶31

court after 45 years.

¶32

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the land which stood in the name of the father of the appellant was acquired. An award was passed in the year 1977. Some of the persons from the same award filed a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The same was allowed in the year 1984. The appellant is also entitled to enhanced amount of compensation as was awarded by the Reference Court in the reference filed by others under Section 18 of the Act.

¶33

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the delay should not affect his right. Learned counsel relies upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Vidya Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, (2020) 2 SCC 569 .

¶34

It is not the case of the appellant that the land of the appellant or his forefathers was acquired without resorting to the provisions of the Act. The award was passed. The amount of

¶35

___________ Page 3 of 6_

¶36

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

¶37

W.A.No.1355 of 2023

¶38

compensation is paid to the forefathers of the appellant. Some of the persons had filed a reference under Section 18 of the Act. The said reference was allowed in the year 1984. The forefathers of the appellant did not file any reference. Still they had a right to file an application under Section 28A of the Act at the relevant time within three months. The same was also not filed and the appellant has approached the court only in the year 2021.

¶39

The judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Vidya Devi

¶40

(supra) would not apply in the present case. In case of Vidya Devi (supra), the land was acquired without resorting to the provisions of the Act and without payment of any compensation. In the present case, the provisions of the Act are resorted to and compensation amount is paid to the forefathers of the appellant.

¶41

Now, before the learned Single Judge the enhanced amount

¶42

is claimed after 45 years of the award being passed.

¶43

The learned Single Judge has not committed any error in

¶44

___________ Page 4 of 6_

¶45

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

¶46

W.A.No.1355 of 2023

¶47

passing the impugned order.

¶48

The appeal, as such, is dismissed. There will be no order as

¶49

to costs.

¶50

(S.V.G., CJ.) (P.D.A., J.) 03.07.2023 Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No sasi

¶51

To:

¶52

1 The District Collector Salem District.

¶53

2 The Project Director National Highways Authority of India (NH 68) 212-3 / D-31 Srinagar Colony Narasothipatty, Salem - 636 004.

¶54

3 The Competent Authority and Spl. District Revenue Officer (Land Acquisition) 3-B/8, Ram Nagar, 2nd Gate Swarnapuri, Salem District.

¶55

4 The Land Acquisition Officer and Special Thasildar (NA) National Highways Salem – 1.

¶56

___________ Page 5 of 6_

¶57

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

¶58

W.A.No.1355 of 2023

¶59

THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND P.D.AUDIKESAVALU,J.

(sasi)

W.A.No.1355 of 2023

03.07.2023

___________ Page 6 of 6_

¶64

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

K.v.Sadasivam v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.v.Sadasivam 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K. Venkatesan Vs K. Sankari

C.Nagarajan Vs S.S.Rajhmohan

P.SENTHILKUMAR,47 Yrs, Vs B. Rajasekar

M.R.Viswanathan Vs The Principal Secretary to Government

M/S.Somasimara Realters (P) Vs State of Tamilnadu

M/S.Somasimara Realters (P) Vs State of Tamilnadu