Allowed

Srinivasan.N v. the Dist.Collector

Madras HC2 Aug 2023WP(MD)/11626/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court allowed a writ petition filed under Article 226. The Court held that the petitioner's application for enhancement of compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was within the limitation period as it was filed immediately after the Supreme Court dismissed the SLP against the acquisition proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's application for enhancement and pass appropriate orders within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Srinivasan.N Vs the Dist.Collector — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.(MD).No.11626 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 02.08.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY

¶6

W.P.(MD).No.11626 of 2021

¶7

N.Srinivasan ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The District Collector, Tuticorin District, Tuticorin.

¶10

2.The Special Tahsildar, Adhi Dravidar Welfare, Ettaiyapuram Road, Kovilpatti, Tuticorin District.

¶11

... Respondents

¶12

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the second respondent to take immediate steps to refer the petitioner's application for enhancement of compensation to the competent Tribunal with regard to the lands in S.No.850/3A1 and 850/3A2 to extent of 3.07 acres situated at Nalattinputhur Village, Kovilpatti Taluk within a time frame fixed by this Court.

¶13

1/5

¶14

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

¶15

W.P.(MD).No.11626 of 2021

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Srinivasan For Respondents : Mr.A.K.Manikkam, Special Government Pleader.

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This Writ Petition is filed for Mandamus, directing the second respondent to take immediate steps to refer the petitioner's application for enhancement of compensation to the competent Tribunal with regard to the lands in S.No. 850/3A1 and 850/3A2 to extent of 3.07 acres situated at Nalattinputhur Village, Kovilpatti Taluk.

¶19

The land belongs to the petitioner's family and the respondents had issued acquisition notification under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for assignment of free house sites to 70 beneficiaries for the Adi Dravidar Welfare Community. The respondents have fixed the compensation payable at Rs.44.79 per cent, but the market value was Rs.5,000/- per cent. The petitioner challenged the very acquisition proceedings and the said litigation went up to Supreme Court by filing SLP and the SLP was dismissed on 12.12.2009. Immediately, thereafter the petitioner's father through his power agent has submitted an application dated 23.03.2009 for enhancement of compensation.

¶20

2/5

¶21

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

¶22

W.P.(MD).No.11626 of 2021

¶23

The respondents objected to the petitioner’s claim as barred by limitation. But the petitioner submitted that the very acquisition proceedings was challenged and after the same is dismissed, immediately the claim petition is filed and hence the petition cannot be said as barred by limitation.

¶24

This Court is of the considered opinion if the litigation from the date of award till the date of SLP is taken into account, for the purpose of limitation, then the present claim of the petitioner has to be taken within the prescribed time limit. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that if the dismissal date of SLP is taken as 12.02.2009, the petitioner has submitted the application for enhancement on 23.03.2009 within a period of 90 days, then the respondents shall consider the petitioner's application 23.03.2009 and pass appropriate orders within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the petitioner is at liberty to submit any evidence to substantiate his claim.

¶25

3/5

¶26

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

¶27

W.P.(MD).No.11626 of 2021

¶28

In view of the above, this Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no

¶29

order as to costs.

¶30

02.08.2023

¶31

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No Nsr

¶32

¶33

1.The District Collector, Tuticorin District, Tuticorin.

¶34

2.The Special Tahsildar, Adhi Dravidar Welfare, Ettaiyapuram Road, Kovilpatti, Tuticorin District.

¶35

4/5

¶36

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

¶37

W.P.(MD).No.11626 of 2021

¶38

S.SRIMATHY, J.

¶39

Nsr

¶40

W.P.(MD).No.11626 of 2021

¶41

02.08.2023

¶42

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

¶43

5/5

Srinivasan.N v. the Dist.Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Srinivasan.N v. the Dist.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

Kannaya Naidu.B Vs The District Collector

Hariharan.P Vs the District Collector

Musthafa Vs The Commissioner of Customs

Arulmigu Mandhiramoorthy Vinayagar Temple Vs The Joint Commissioner

Sivakumar Vs the Sub Registrar

Chellappan.Rm Vs The Madurai Corporation