Dismissed

Raju.a v. The District Collector

Madras HC18 Oct 2023WP(MD)/2987/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought a writ mandamus to enhance land acquisition compensation under the National Highways Act, referencing a 2020 representation made 11 years after the original award. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that statutory time limits preclude directing authorities to consider such late representations.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; the writ petition was dismissed with no costs awarded.

Raju.a Vs The District Collector — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.2987 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 18.10.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.2987 of 2021

A.Raju

... Petitioner

vs.

1.The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai.

¶11

2.The Special Tahsildar (LA Competent Authority), National Highways Authority, Level 2, Office, Melure, Madurai District. ... Respondents

¶12

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1^st and 2^nd Respondents to despatch the petitioner enhancement and compensation amount as per the market value for acquisition of land in S.No.83/2A1, Rajakambiram Village, Madurai North Taluk, Madurai District to an extent of 8.46 cents (3680 sqt.mts) with reference to compensation, as per representation submitted by the petitioner dated 14.12.2020 within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶13

For Petitioner :Mr.T.Chandrasekaran For Respondents :Mr.A.K.Manikkam Special Government Pleader

¶14

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

¶15

1/4

¶16

W.P.(MD)No.2987 of 2021

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first and second respondents to act upon the representation made by the petitioner on 14.12.2020 and to enhance the compensation amount for the lands acquired from the petitioner under National Highways Act.

¶19

2.Heard Mr.T.Chandrasekaran, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr.A.K.Manikkam, learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents.

¶20

3.In the considered view of this Court, the award was passed on 28.01.2009 and the representation has been made by the petitioner to the first and second respondents nearly after 11 years in the year 2020. The National Highways Act itself provides for a procedure to seek for enhancement of compensation and time limit has been fixed. In view of the same, there is no question of directing the respondents to consider the representation after 11 years and hence, the relief sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted by this Court.

¶21

2/4

¶22

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

¶23

W.P.(MD)No.2987 of 2021

¶24

4.The Writ Petition is dismissed in the above terms. No costs.

¶25

Index :Yes / No 18.10.2023 Internet :Yes NCC : Yes/No

¶26

cmr To

¶27

1.The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai.

¶28

2.The Special Tahsildar (LA Competent Authority), National Highways Authority, Level 2, Office, Melure, Madurai District.

¶29

3/4

¶30

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

¶31

W.P.(MD)No.2987 of 2021

¶32

N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.

¶33

cmr

¶34

W.P.(MD)No.2987 of 2021

¶35

18.10.2023

¶36

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

¶37

4/4

Raju.a v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju.a 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

Mohan Vs the Principal Secretary

Parvathi.M Vs the Special Officer

S.P.Sathasivam Vs The District Revenue Officer

Chithambaram.C Vs the Commissioner

Vijayashree.S Vs the District Collector

Anbalagan.N.N Vs the Dist Collector