Disposed

S.Kanchana Ammal v. The District Collector

Madras HC7 Dec 2023WP/11873/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This certified non-speaking order directs the Land Acquisition Officer to consider the petitioner's representation regarding enhanced compensation for acquired land within two months, citing the respondent's inaction.

What did the court decide?

Directed the third respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 23.03.2018 and pass appropriate orders on merits within two months after giving notice to interested parties.

S.Kanchana Ammal Vs The District Collector — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.11873 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 07.12.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

¶6

W.P.No.11873 of 2018

¶7

S.Kanchana Ammal W/o.Subramaniam Petitioner

¶8

versus

¶9

1.The District Collector Thiruvallur Thiruvallur District.

¶10

2.The Commissioner

¶11

Hindu Religious Charitable Endowment (HR & CE) Chennai.

¶12

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer (Land Acquisition Officer) Tiruvallur, Thiruvallur District.

¶13

4.The Joint Commissioner

¶14

Hindu Religious Charitable Endowment (HR & CE) Thiruvallur

¶15

Thiruvallur District.

¶16

5.The Tahsildar Thirutani

¶17

Pg.Nos.1/6

¶18

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

¶19

W.P.No.11873 of 2018

¶20

Thiruvallur District.

¶21

6.The Executive Officer Arulmigu Subramania Swami Devastanam Thiruttani, Thiruvallur District.

¶22

.....Respondents

¶23

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 3^rd respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 23.03.2018 by enhancing the compensation amount for one cent as Rs.350 to Rs.1050 or more that may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

¶24

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Nagarajan For Respondents : Mr.P.Gurunathan Additional Government Pleader for R1, R3 and R5 Mr.K.Karthikeyan Government (HR &CE) for R2 and R4 Mr.P.Gopalan, for R6

¶25

O R D E R

¶26

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the third respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 23.03.2018, wherein and whereby, she sought for enhancement of compensation in respect of her property in S.No.347/2 measuring an extent of 0.55 cents situated at No.63, Mattam Village, Tiruthani Taluk, Thiruvallur District.

¶27

Pg.Nos.2/6

¶28

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

¶29

W.P.No.11873 of 2018

¶30

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's land was acquired by the Government in the year 1983 and a sum of Rs.350/- was paid per cent, against which, the petitioner has a given a representation dated 23.03.2018 before the third respondent seeking for enhancement of compensation at the rate of Rs.1,050/- per cent. However, the third respondent has not considered the same till date and hence, the present Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner.

¶31

Though the present writ petition is pending for five years, neither the third respondent considered the representation of the petitioner nor did he file a counter affidavit before this Court, which clearly shows the lethargic attitude of the respondents. To be noted, the respondents should remind themselves that they are serving only for public and by simply sitting in the Government office and getting salary from the tax paid by the public, they are not serving to the needy public.

¶32

However, by considering the limited scope of the matter and having

¶33

Pg.Nos.3/6

¶34

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

¶35

W.P.No.11873 of 2018

¶36

regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, directs the third respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 23.03.2018 and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, after giving notice to all the interested parties, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶37

With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶38

07.12.2023

¶39

Index: Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order Neutral Citation Case : Yes/No

¶40

¶41

Pg.Nos.4/6

¶42

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

¶43

W.P.No.11873 of 2018

¶44

¶45

1.The District Collector Thiruvallur Thiruvallur District.

¶46

2.The Commissioner Hindu Religious Charitable Endowment (HR & CE) Chennai.

¶47

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer (Land Acquisition Officer) Tiruvallur, Thiruvallur District.

¶48

4.The Joint Commissioner

¶49

Hindu Religious Charitable Endowment (HR & CE) Thiruvallur

¶50

Thiruvallur District.

¶51

5.The Tahsildar Thirutani Thiruvallur District.

¶52

6.The Executive Officer Arulmigu Subramania Swami Devastanam Thiruttani, Thiruvallur District.

¶53

Pg.Nos.5/6

¶54

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

W.P.No.11873 of 2018

P.VELMURUGAN, J.

W.P.No.11873 of 2018

07.12.2023 (1/2)

Pg.Nos.6/6

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

S.Kanchana Ammal v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Kanchana Ammal 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

N.Loganathan Vs The District Collector cum Arbitrator

G. Venkatesan Vs the State of Tamilnadu

Mrs.C.Vishnudevi, Vs The Secretary

Crescent Nursery & Primary Vs the District Collector

M.Arunraj Vs The Commissioner

N. Sampooranammal, Vs The District Collector