Disposed

A.Fathima Beevi v. The Special District Revenue Officer (La)

Madras HC11 Apr 2023WP/10947/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition filed under Article 226 for compensation due to land acquisition was disposed of by directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation on merits within eight weeks, noting the duty to avoid indefinite delay.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 21.09.2022 on merits and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks.

A.Fathima Beevi Vs The Special District… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.10947 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 11.04.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

¶6

W.P.No.10947 of 2023

¶7

A. Fathima Beevi ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The Special District Revenue Officer (LA),

¶10

Rehabilitation and Resettlement,

¶11

Chennai – Kanyakumari Industrial Corridor Project-21, Aishwarya Nagar, Koranattukarupur, Kumbakonam Taluk.

¶12

2.The Project Director, Chennai – Kanyakumari Industrial, Corridor Project, C.K.I.C.P Complex, HRS Campus, Guindy, Chennai – 600 025.

¶13

3.The Divisional Engineer, Chennai – Kanyakumari Industrial, Corridor Project, Plot No.41, 2^nd Floor, 3^rd Cross Lane,

¶14

CRC HO Opp. Kumbakonam – 612 001. ... Respondents

¶15

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, d irecting the respondents

¶16

1/6

¶17

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

¶18

W.P.No.10947 of 2023

¶19

to pay the petitioner a sum of Rs.56,25,100/- as claimed by the petitioner in her representation dated 21.09.2022, as compensation towards total loss of livelihood, total loss of rental income, solatium etc., caused due to acquisition of petitioner land and building under Chennai Kanyakumari Industrial Corridor Project.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.C.S.K. Sathish For Respondents : Mr.P. Sathish, Additional Government Pleader

¶21

ORDER

¶22

With the consent of both parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶23

2. The petitioner herein had given representation on 21.09.2022

¶24

to the respondents, claiming an additional compensation towards loss of rental income. Subsequently, the second respondent has forwarded the petitioner's representation to the first respondent, to consider the same. Since there was no further progress, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

¶25

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

¶26

2/6

¶27

W.P.No.10947 of 2023

¶28

3. It is needless to point out that whenever a representation of this nature is made to a Statutory Authority, there is a duty cast upon the respondent to consider the same on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in one way or other, instead of keeping the same pending indefinitely. As such, non-consideration of the representation by the Statutory Authority would amount to dereliction of duty and hence, this Court will be justified in invoking its extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and direct them to consider the same within a stipulated time.

¶29

4. In the light of the above observations, there shall be a direction to the first and second respondents herein, to consider the petitioner's representation dated 21.09.2022, in the light of the entitlement embarks for Chennai Kanyakumari Industrial Corridor Project, on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any of its views with regard to the merits of the claim made by the petitioner and that it is open to

¶30

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

¶31

3/6

¶32

W.P.No.10947 of 2023

¶33

the concerned respondent to consider the same on its own merits.

¶34

5. With the above direction, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.

¶35

No costs.

¶36

11.04.2023

¶37

Speaking/Non-speaking Order Internet: Yes/No Index: Yes/No Neutral Citation: Yes/No

¶38

Sni

¶39

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

4/6

W.P.No.10947 of 2023

1.The Special District Revenue Officer (LA), Rehabilitation and Resettlement, Chennai – Kanyakumari Industrial Corridor Project-21, Aishwarya Nagar, Koranattukarupur, Kumbakonam Taluk.

¶44

2.The Project Director, Chennai – Kanyakumari Industrial, Corridor Project, C.K.I.C.P Complex, HRS Campus, Guindy, Chennai – 600 025.

¶45

3.The Divisional Engineer, Chennai – Kanyakumari Industrial, Corridor Project, Plot No.41, 2^nd Floor, 3^rd Cross Lane, CRC HO Opp. Kumbakonam – 612 001.

¶46

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

5/6

W.P.No.10947 of 2023

M.S.RAMESH, J.

Sni

W.P.No.10947 of 2023

11.04.2023

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

A.Fathima Beevi v. The Special District Revenue Officer (La)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Fathima Beevi v. The Special District Revenue Officer (La)

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

Sarathy Vs The District Collector

Mahalakshmi Nagar Welfare Association Vs The District Collector

S.Indirani Vs The Inspector General of Registration

M/s.Hotel Saravana Bhavan Vs The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-Ii

M.Sekar Vs The District Collector

Ahle sunnath Jamath Vs The District Revenue officer