Disposed

Palanisamy.R v. the District Revenue Officer (Land Acquisition)

Madras HC10 Nov 2023WP(MD)/6818/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by a landowner seeking delayed compensation payment due to a dispute with his tenant over electricity and rent. Directing the authorities to pay the landowner for the land and building and the tenant for machinery relocation, the Court held that recovery of rental and electricity arrears must be pursued independently by the owner against the

What did the court decide?

Direct the respondents to pay compensation for land and building to the petitioner and compensation for machinery relocation to the tenant within four weeks.

Palanisamy.R Vs the District Revenue Officer (Land… — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.6818 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 10.11.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.6818 of 2021

R.Palanisamy

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The District Revenue Officer (Land Acquisition), National Highways No. 209, Dindigul.

¶11

2.The Special Thasildar ( Land Acquisition), O/o. the Outer Ring Road,

¶12

(NH7-209) Dindigul-OddanchathiramPollachi National Highways, D.No.4/659,

¶13

Indira Nagar, Thadikommpu Road, Dindigul. ...Respondents

¶14

PRAYER : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to release the full compensation amount to the petitioner for his property in S.F.No. 574/1A, Kodalvavee village, Dindigul West Taluk, Dindigul District further consider the petitioners representation dated 15.10.2020 within a specified time frame that may be fixed by this Court.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Karthik For Respondents : Ms.D.Farjana Ghoushia Special Government Pleader

¶16

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

¶17

1/6

¶18

W.P.(MD)No.6818 of 2021

¶19

O RDER

¶20

This writ petition has been filed for the issue of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the compensation amount to the petitioner for the acquisition of the property belonging to the petitioner by considering the representation dated 15.10.2020.

¶21

2.The case of the petitioner is that he is the owner of the subject property situated in SF.No.574/1A at Kodalvavee Village, Dindigul District. This property was leased out to R.Eswaran and T.Sivakumar, who were running a Mill in the property from the year 2018 onwards. Whileso, acquisition proceedings were initiated under the National Highways Act. The compensation amount was also ascertained. Some dispute was raised by the tenant and as a result, the compensation amount was not released by the respondents. The representation that was made by the petitioner in this regard also did not evoke any response. In view of the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition before this Court.

¶22

3.When the matter is taken up for hearing today, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the

¶23

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

¶24

2/6

¶25

W.P.(MD)No.6818 of 2021

¶26

compensation has already been ascertained and it is broadly calculated under three heads. The first head is land, the second head is building and the third head is the expenses that will be incurred for relocation of the machineries. The learned Special Government Pleader submitted that there was some dispute between the petitioner and the above said T.Sivakumar. Due to this inter se dispute, the second respondent was not able to pay the compensation amount.

¶27

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he does not have any objection in paying compensation to the tenant under the head of relocating the machineries. He further submitted that the tenant had left huge arrears payable towards electricity consumption and also rent. Therefore, it was contended that this amount must also be deducted from the compensation payable to the tenant and the balance can be given to the tenant.

¶28

5.In the considered view of this Court, the inter se dispute between the petitioner and his tenant cannot be handled by the respondents. The arrears that is claimed by the petitioner towards consumption of electricity and rental arrears should be independently recovered by the petitioner from the tenant and that cannot be a subject matter while paying the compensation. In view of the same, the compensation with regard to the land and building can be paid to the

¶29

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

¶30

3/6

¶31

W.P.(MD)No.6818 of 2021

¶32

petitioner and the compensation for relocation of the machineries can be paid to the tenant. Insofar as recovery of the electricity dues and rental arrears, the petitioner has to independently proceed against the tenant.

¶33

6.In the result, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to pay the compensation for the land and building to the petitioner and for the relocation of the machineries to the tenant. This process shall be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner shall place his title documents before the first respondent to clarify that he is entitled to receive the entire compensation towards the land and building. Copy of the award passed shall also be furnished to the petitioner by the second respondent. No costs.

¶34

10.11.2023

¶35

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No ta

¶36

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

¶37

4/6

¶38

W.P.(MD)No.6818 of 2021

¶39

¶40

1.The District Revenue Officer (Land Acquisition), National Highways No. 209, Dindigul.

¶41

2.The Special Thasildar ( Land Acquisition), O/o. the Outer Ring Road, (NH7-209) Dindigul-OddanchathiramPollachi National Highways, D.No.4/659,

¶42

Indira Nagar, Thadikommpu Road, Dindigul.

¶43

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

¶44

5/6

¶45

W.P.(MD)No.6818 of 2021

¶46

N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.

¶47

¶48

W.P.(MD)No.6818 of 2021

¶49

10.11.2023

¶50

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

¶51

6/6

Palanisamy.R v. the District Revenue Officer (Land Acquisition)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Palanisamy.R v. the District Revenue Officer (Land Acquisition)

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

Pushpam.P Vs the District Collector

Mohamed Ismails. Vs the Inspector General of Registration

Rajammal Vs Executive Engineer

Narayanan.R Vs the District Collector

S.Pandi Vs The District Collector

Subramanian.K Vs The Competent Authority cum Special District Revenue Officer