Disposed

Dr. S.R. Krishnamoorthy v. the State of Tamiadu

Madras HC18 Dec 2023WP/21012/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Coram P. Velmurugan, J. Petitioners, co-owners of land in North Arcot District, sought a writ of mandamus to restore possession after land acquisition for housing M.B.C.s was quashed. The Court directed the authorities to issue a fresh notification and find appropriate compensation under LARR Act, 2013, or fix fair compensation through private negotiation.

What did the court decide?

Directed authorities to issue fresh notification, conduct enquiry for fair compensation for petitioners under LARR Act, 2013, or attempt private negotiation within 3 months.

Dr. S.R. Krishnamoorthy Vs the State of Tamiadu — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.21012 of 2006

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 18.12.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

¶6

W.P.No.21012 of 2006

¶7

1.Dr.S.R.Krishnamoorthy

2.S.R.Narasimhan

3.Dr.S.R.Madhaviah

... Petitioners

[All the petitioners represented by Power of Attorney Agent R.Nagalakshmi ]

¶12

versus

¶13

The State of Tamil Nadu represented by its Secretary to Government, Backward Classes and Most Backward Classes Welfare Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009. .....Respondent

¶14

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to forthwith restore the land concerned situated in Survey No.10/10, Vannivedu Village, Walajah Taluk, North Arcot District, measuring an extent of 1.00.5 hectares to the petitioners by removing the allottees and others thereon.

¶15

Pg.Nos.1/6

¶16

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

¶17

W.P.No.21012 of 2006

¶18

For Petitioners : Mr.P.K.Rajagopal For Respondent : Mr.V.Veluchamy Additional Government Pleader

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to forthwith restore the land concerned situated in Survey No.10/10, Vannivedu Village, Walajah Taluk, North Arcot District, measuring an extent of 1.00.5 hectares to the petitioners by removing the allottees and others thereon.

¶21

The case of the petitioners is that they are the co-owners of the subject property. While so, the respondent issued Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act,1894 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'] published in the Gazette on 31.3.1993 to acquire the lands for the purpose of allotting house-sites to the house-less most backward class people. After conducting enquiry under Section 5-A of the said Act, the Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made on 26.4.1994. Thereafter, the Award enquiry was conducted on 10.1.1995 and the Award was also passed on the same day. Challenging the same, the petitioners filed W.P.No.6589 of 1995 and

¶22

Pg.Nos.2/6

¶23

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

¶24

W.P.No.21012 of 2006

¶25

this Court, by order dated 11.09.2001 allowed the Writ Petition and quashed the Land Acquisition Proceedings. As against the said order, the respondent filed Review Application No.102 of 2001 and the same was dismissed on merits by this Court on 08.02.2002. Challenging the same, the respondent has not filed any appeal. Though the respondent took possession of the land pursuant to the Land Acquisition Proceedings, however, they did not restore the possession of the subject property to the petitioners, after quashing of the Land Acquisition Proceedings by this Court. Hence, the petitioners made several representations to the respondent to restore the possession of the land, but there was no response from the respondent. In the meanwhile, the petitioners, executed Power of Attorney in favour of one R.Nagalakshmi, since the petitioners are away from India and they are permanently residing in U.S.A. Thereafter, the said Power of Attorney has given representations to the respondent for the relief as sought for in this writ petition. Since there was no response from the respondent, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

¶26

The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the

¶27

Pg.Nos.3/6

¶28

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

¶29

W.P.No.21012 of 2006

¶30

respondent submitted that already Award has been passed and possession was also taken and that the land was allotted to the allottees/beneficiaries and Revenue records were also mutated in their names. The beneficiaries also took possession of the said land and also constructed buildings and they

¶31

are residing and the nature of the land itself has been changed. The beneficiaries are continuing in the acquired land.

¶32

Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

¶33

It is seen that though the acquisition proceedings were quashed, the land was not restored to the petitioners, but instead beneficiaries are given the same and they are in possession. Since all the beneficiaries put up constructions as stated by the Government, the authority concerned is directed to issue fresh notification in the manner known to law and after giving an opportunity to the petitioners and conducting enquiry, pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law. If the petitioners are willing for negotiation, the respondent/competent authority is directed to go for private negotiation and fix fair compensation under the Right to Fair

¶34

Pg.Nos.4/6

¶35

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

¶36

W.P.No.21012 of 2006

¶37

Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Re-Settlement Act, 2013. Such exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶38

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

¶39

18.12.2023

¶40

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

¶41

¶42

To The Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu Backward Classes and Most Backward Classes Welfare Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

¶43

Pg.Nos.5/6

¶44

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

W.P.No.21012 of 2006

P.VELMURUGAN, J.

W.P.No.21012 of 2006

18.12.2023

Pg.Nos.6/6

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

Dr. S.R. Krishnamoorthy v. the State of Tamiadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. S.R. Krishnamoorthy v. the State of Tamiadu

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

G.Balasubramanian, Vs The Secretary to Government

Siva Kumar Vs The Commissioner and Secretary

K.Madhaiyan Vs The District Collector

A.Vinothkumar Vs Village Administrative Officer

V.Murali Vs The Secretary to Government

M.Amutha Vs the District Collector