Partly allowed

N.K.Rajan v. The Union of India

Madras HC6 Jun 2023WP/2235/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 seeking a writ of mandamus directing the District Collector to survey, evaluate, and award compensation for standing trees and crops within a specified time based on a representation filed on 19.11.2018.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 5th respondent to consider the representation dated 19.11.2018 and pass an order within three months.

N.K.Rajan Vs The Union of India — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 06.06.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH

¶6

W.P Nos.2235 and 2237 of 2023

¶7

N.K.Rajan ... Petitioner in WP No.2235 of 2023 Padmanabhan ... Petitioner in WP No.2237 of 2023

¶8

vs.

¶9

The Union of India, Represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forests Wildlife Division, Paryavaran Bhavan, CGO complex, New Delhi – 110003

¶10

The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary to Government, Department of Environment and Forests, Fort St. George, Chennai.

¶11

The Member Secretary, National Tiger Conservation Authority, Annexure No.5, Bikaner House, Shahjahan Road, New Delhi – 110001

¶12

The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests – Wildlife Division, Panagal Maligai, Saidapet, Chennai.

¶13

The District Collector, Udhagamandalam, Nilgiris District.

¶14

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

¶15

¶16

The Chief Conservatory of Fo rest and The Field Director, Project Tiger, The Tiger conservation Authority Mudumalai Tiger Reserve, Udhagamandalam Nilgiri District

¶17

7 The Settlement officer and District Revenue officer, Gudalur Janmam Lands, Gudalur Nilgiris District

¶18

... Respondents in both WPs

¶19

Prayer in WP No.2235 of 2023: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 5th respondent to survey and evaluate the standing trees and crops plated in S.F. No. 19/3 and 19/5 at Nelakottai village Gudalur Taluk, Nilgiris District consequently award its value as compensation to the petitioner within a reasonable time by considering the representation to the petitioner within a reasonable time by considering the representation of the petitioner herein dated 19.11.2018.

¶20

Prayer in WP No.2237 of 2023: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 5th respondent to survey and evaluate the standing trees and crops plated in S.F. No. 25/4A & 256A, 7 at Nelakottai village, Gudalur Taluk, Nilgiris District, consequently award its value as compensation to the petitioner within a reasonable time by considering the representation to the petitioner within a reasonable time by considering the representation of the petitioner herein dated 19.11.2018.

¶21

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Nalliyappan

¶22

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

¶23

¶24

in both WPs For Respondents : Mr.Prasad Vijayakumar in both WPs Central Government Senior Panel Counsel for R1 MR.A.M.Ayyadurai Government Advocate for R1,4,5,6,7 C O M M O N O R D E R

¶25

These writ petitions have been filed for the issue of writ

¶26

of Mandamus directing the 5^th respondent to consider the representation dated 19.11.2018, wherein the petitioners had sought for compensation for the standing trees and crops planted in the subject property.

¶27

notice was taken by the learned Government Advocate on behalf of respondents 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7 and the learned Government Advocate was directed to take instructions. Mr.Prasad Vijayakumar, learned Central Government Senior Panel Counsel, takes notice for 1^st respondent.

¶28

When the matter was taken up for hearing today, the learned Government Advocate produced the written instructions received from the RDO, Gudalur, the Nilgiris District. On going

¶29

through the same, it is seen that the authority has sought for some https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

¶31

time to take a decision on the representation made by the petitioners seeking for compensation and that the request made by the petitioners along with the report will be placed in the next District Level Committee Meeting.

¶32

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of

¶33

the case and the stand taken by the respondents, there shall be a direction to the 5^th respondent to deal with the representation dated 19.11.2018 and take a decision on its own merits and in accordance with law and an order shall be passed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶34

These writ petitions are disposed of with the above

¶35

directions. No costs.

¶36

06.06.2023

¶37

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

¶38

The Union of India, Represented by its Secretary,

¶39

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

¶40

¶41

Ministry of Environment and Forests Wildlife Division, Paryavaran Bhavan, CGO complex, New Delhi – 110003

¶42

The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary to Government, Department of Environment and Forests, Fort St. George, Chennai.

¶43

The Member Secretary, National Tiger Conservation Authority, Annexure No.5, Bikaner House, Shahjahan Road, New Delhi – 110001

¶44

The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests – Wildlife Division, Panagal Maligai, Saidapet, Chennai.

¶45

The District Collector, Udhagamandalam, Nilgiris District.

¶46

The Chief Conservatory of Fo rest and The Field Director, Project Tiger, The Tiger conservation Authority

¶47

Mudumalai Tiger Reserve, Udhagamandalam Nilgiri District

¶48

7 The Settlement officer and District Revenue officer, Gudalur Janmam Lands, Gudalur Nilgiris District

¶49

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

¶50

¶51

N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.

¶52

rka

¶53

W.P Nos.2235 and 2237 of 2023

¶54

06.06.2023

¶55

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

N.K.Rajan v. The Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.K.Rajan v. The Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Abdul suban sahib Vs The District Collector

M.S.Maasen Enterprises Vs The Managing Director

Nagaraj Vs The Inspector of Panchayat-cum-District Collector

L and W Building solutions Private Limtied Vs Micro and small Enterprises Facilitation Council

P.Vageesan Vs The Commissioner

Sri Vidya Valam Vinayagar koil Trust Vs The Commissioner