Allowed

G.Kamaraj v. the District Collector

Madras HC6 Nov 2024WP/21429/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the petitioner sought instructions for the District Collector to re-determine land acquisition compensation under Section 28A following an earlier pending petition. The Court noted prior non-compliance with a 2010 order dismissing the previous petition and granted relief.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's petition allowed; District Collector directed to pass appropriate orders on merits within three weeks of receipt; no costs.

G.Kamaraj Vs the District Collector — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.21429 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 06.11.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA

W.P.No.21429 of 2024

G.Kamaraj

... Petitioner

Vs.

The District Collector, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram.

¶11

The District Collector, Chennai District,

¶12

Chennai – 600 001.

¶13

The District Revenue Officer, Chennai District, Chennai – 600 001.

¶14

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tambaram, Kancheepuram District.

¶15

The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, CMDA Building, Koyambedu, Chennai – 600 107.

¶16

The Special Tahsildar, UNIT-V(LA) Land Acquisition for Housing, Board Schemes, Tamil Nadu Housing Board,

¶17

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

¶18

Page No. 1 of 7

¶19

W.P.No.21429 of 2024

¶20

CMDA Building, Koyambedu, Chennai – 600 107.

¶21

... Respondents

¶22

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the 2^nd Respondent herein to being collector for land acquisition proceedings to re-determine the compensation payable to the petitioner in respect of lands acquired bearing survey numbers 343/3 and 345/3c to an extent of 0.32 cents and 0.19 cents respectively situated at Sholinganallur Village, Tambaram Taluk, Kancheepuram District, now Chennai District under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 pursuant to the Order passed in W.P.No.6865 of 2006 dated 03.09.2010 and communication dated 20.06.2019 by the 5^th Respondent to the 2^nd Respondent and communication dated 25.02.2020 by the 3^rd Respondent to the 5^th Respondent.

¶23

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Gokulnath

¶24

For R1 to R4 & R6: Mr.R.Gokul Krishnan Additional Government Pleader

¶25

ORDER

¶26

This Writ Petition has been filed for a Mandamus to direct the 2^nd Respondent herein, the District Collector for land acquisition proceedings to re-determine the compensation payable to the petitioner in respect of lands

¶27

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

¶28

_____________ Page No. 2 of 7_

¶29

W.P.No.21429 of 2024

¶30

acquired bearing survey numbers 343/3 and 345/3c to an extent of 0.32 cents and 0.19 cents respectively situated at Sholinganallur Village, Tambaram Taluk, Kancheepuram District, now Chennai District under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 pursuant to the Order passed in W.P.No.6865 of 2006 dated 03.09.2010 and communication dated 20.06.2019 by the 5^th Respondent to the 2^nd Respondent and communication dated 25.02.2020 by the 3^rd Respondent to the 5^th Respondent.

¶31

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

¶32

Perusal of the records of the papers would indicate that earlier the Petitioner's father had filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.6865 of 2006 for the very same relief i.e., to quash the Land Acquisition proceedings and to re-determine the compensation under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

¶33

By an Order dated 03.09.2010, W.P.No.6865 of 2006 was disposed

¶34

of with the following observations:-

¶35

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

¶36

_____________ Page No. 3 of 7_

¶37

W.P.No.21429 of 2024

¶38

“7. For the above reasons, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the 1^st Respondent. The 1^st Respondent is directed to pass fresh orders on merits, without reference to the limitation, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”

¶39

Though the Order was passed as early as on 03.09.2010, the Respondents did not comply with the order and even after several representations made thereafter, it has not been taken into consideration.

¶40

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Writ Petition is allowed by directing the Respondents to pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of three (3) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. No costs. Failing which, the District Collector shall be present on 02.12.2024.

¶41

06.11.2024

¶42

Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking Order

¶43

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

¶44

Page No. 4 of 7

¶45

W.P.No.21429 of 2024

¶46

Neutral Citation :Yes/No rgm

¶47

¶48

The District Collector, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram.

¶49

The District Collector, Chennai District, Chennai – 600 001.

¶50

The District Revenue Officer, Chennai District, Chennai – 600 001.

¶51

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tambaram, Kancheepuram District.

¶52

The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, CMDA Building, Koyambedu, Chennai – 600 107.

¶53

The Special Tahsildar, UNIT-V(LA) Land Acquisition for Housing, Board Schemes, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, CMDA Building, Koyambedu, Chennai – 600 107.

¶54

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

¶55

_____________ Page No. 5 of 7_

¶56

W.P.No.21429 of 2024

P.T.ASHA, J.

rgm

W.P.No.21429 of 2024

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

¶61

_____________ Page No. 6 of 7_

¶62

W.P.No.21429 of 2024

¶63

06.11.2024

¶64

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

¶65

Page No. 7 of 7

G.Kamaraj v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Kamaraj 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

V.N.a.S.Chandran Vs G.K.Vijayakumar

A.Pavadaisamy Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

P.Jayaraman @ Pulipaadu jayaraman Vs The Arbitrator and District collector

B.Vimala Vs the Sub Registrar

E.Jayalakshmi Vs the Inspector General of Registration

Mrs. Hemamalini, Vs the Inspector General of Registration