Dismissed

Vijay Kumar v. the Government of Tamilnadu

Madras HC1 Mar 2024WP/2102/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a Government Order regarding land acquisition. Court observed that fresh proceedings were initiated and a new notice served post-quashing of a prior order, rendering the petitioner's plea for removal of roads or compensation untenable.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition dismissed; respondents at liberty to proceed further in accordance with law.

Vijay Kumar Vs the Government of Tamilnadu — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P. No.2102 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 01.03.2024

¶4

Coram:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

¶6

W.P. No.2102 of 2024 and

¶7

W.M.P. Nos.2249 and 2250 of 2024

Vijay Kumar

… Petitioner

Vs.

The Government of Tamil Nadu

¶12

Rep. by Principal Secretary to the Government Department of Industries

¶13

Rajaji Salai

¶14

Chennai - 600 001

¶15

The District Collector Villupuram District Villupuram - 605 602

¶16

The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) SIPCOT, Unit-II Tindivanam - 604 001 ... Respondents

¶17

Prayer : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records

¶18

1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶19

W.P. No.2102 of 2024 with respect to the proceedings on the file of the 1st respondent in G.O.No.34 Industries (SIPCOT-LA) dated 05.03.2013 with respect to Unit-11, Block-11, Survey Numbers 10/1A1, 10/2A1, Villupuram District, Tindivanam Taluk, Pellakuppam Village and quash the same as illegal incompetent and without jurisdiction and further direct the 2nd and 3rd respondents to remove the roads laid on the survey numbers of the petitioners or alternatively provide compensation in accordance with the Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 (Tamil Nadu Amendment Act 2014).

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.Sai Krishnan for Ms.V.Srimathi For Respondents : Mr.T.Arun Kumar Additional Government Pleader

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This Writ Petition is filed seeking to issue a Writ of Certiorarified

¶23

Mandamus to call for the records with respect to the proceedings on the file of the 1st respondent in G.O.No.34 Industries (SIPCOT-LA) dated 05.03.2013 with respect to Unit-11, Block-11, Survey Numbers 10/1A1,

¶24

10/2A1, Villupuram District, Tindivanam Taluk, Pellakuppam Village and 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶25

W.P. No.2102 of 2024 quash the same as illegal, incompetent and without jurisdiction and further

¶26

direct the 2nd and 3rd respondents to remove the roads laid on the survey

¶27

numbers of the petitioners or alternatively provide compensation in accordance with the Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 (Tamil Nadu Amendment Act 2014).

¶28

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that already, one

¶29

of the land owners filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.24292 of 2014 challenging the said Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.34 Industries (SIPCOT-LA) dated 05.03.2013 and this Court by order dated 14.06.2022, quashed the said Government Order. The contention of the petitioner is

¶30

that, the petitioner's land was also acquired by the respondents under the

¶31

very same Government Order. Even after lapse of 10 years from the date of G.O. and even though this Court had granted liberty to the respondents

¶32

to acquire land afresh, so far, they have not taken any steps. Hence, the

¶33

present Writ Petition is filed.

¶34

The respondents have filed Counter.

¶35

3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶36

W.P. No.2102 of 2024

¶37

The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the

¶38

respondents submitted that after passing of the order in W.P.No.24292 of 2014 dated 14.06.2022, the respondents have also taken steps to acquire lands afresh and the Writ Petitioner was also served with a fresh notice under Section 3 (2) of the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition for Industrial Purpose Act, 1997 on 05.01.2024 calling for his objections with regard to why the petitioner's land should not be acquired. Therefore, the petitioner

¶39

is not entitled for the relief sought for.

¶40

It is seen that this Court while quashing the said G.O., had given

¶41

liberty to the respondents to acquire land if so advised and accordingly, the respondent have also initiated fresh proceedings and notice has also been

¶42

served to the writ petitioner calling for his objections.

¶43

Under these circumstances, the Writ Petitioner is not entitled to

¶44

the relief sought for. The respondents are at liberty to proceed further in

¶45

accordance with law.

¶46

4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶47

W.P. No.2102 of 2024

¶48

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. Consequently,

¶49

connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. There shall be no order as to

¶50

costs.

¶51

01.03.2024

¶52

ksa-2 Index : Yes / No Speaking Order : Yes / No Neutral Citation Case : Yes/No

¶53

¶54

The Principal Secretary to the Government Department of Industries Rajaji Salai Chennai - 600 001

¶55

The District Collector Villupuram District Villupuram - 605 602

¶56

The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) SIPCOT, Unit-II Tindivanam - 604 001

¶57

5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶58

W.P. No.2102 of 2024 P.VELMURUGAN. J.

Ksa-2

W.P. No.2102 of 2024

01.03.2024

6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Vijay Kumar v. the Government of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Kumar v. the Government of Tamilnadu

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

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Minor Tamilselvan

Deivanai Vs the District Collector

Fathima Mary Vs the District Collector

V.Krishna, Vs the District Revenue Officer

G.Jagathammal Vs the District Registrar

K.Raju Vs the Special District Revenue Officer (lAND Acquisition)