Disposed

V.R.Saravanan v. The Principal Chief Engineer

Madras HC12 Aug 2024WP/2758/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought to restrain canal construction and pipeline laying across their agricultural patta lands without due process or fair compensation. Respondents stated an award had been passed and compensation deposited in court. The writ petitions were disposed of with liberty to claim reimbursement of compensation before the concerned court.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to petitioners to file appropriate application before the concerned Court for reimbursement of compensation.

V.R.Saravanan Vs The Principal Chief Engineer — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.Nos.2758 and 2760 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 12.08.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

W.P.Nos.2758 and 2760 of 2021

¶7

and

¶8

W.M.P.Nos.3097 and 3106 of 2021

¶9

Prayer in W.P.No.2758 of 2021

¶10

1.V.R.Saravanan

¶11

2.Muthusamy

¶12

3.Radhamani

¶13

4.Kalaiselvi

¶14

... Petitioners

¶15

Vs.

¶16

The Principal Chief Engineer, WRO, Public Works Department, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.

¶17

2.The District Collector, Salem District,

¶18

Salem.

¶19

3.The Sub-Collector, Mettur, Salem District.

¶20

4.The Tahsildar, Mettur, Salem District.

¶21

... Respondents

¶22

Page 1 of 7

¶23

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

¶24

W.P.Nos.2758 and 2760 of 2021

¶25

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to forbear the respondents from constructing canal in the petitioners agricultural patta land at Survey Nos.87/1B2, 87/1E, 86/4, 86/5B, 91/4B and 91/2B, Soorapalli Village, Mettur Division, Salem District connecting Kuppampatti lake and Jalagandapuram lake, without due process of law.

¶26

Prayer in W.P.No.2760 of 2021

¶27

1.Pachamuthu

¶28

2.Vedappan

¶29

3.M.Pazhanisamy

¶30

4.M.Chinnamuniyan

¶31

5.Mariammal

¶32

6.Anjali

¶33

7.Periyasamy

¶34

8.Mathiazhagan

¶35

9.Vasantha

¶36

10.Veerappan

¶37

11.Raja

¶38

12.Chinnapaiyan

¶39

13.Rajendran

¶40

... Petitioners

¶41

Vs.

¶42

The Principal Chief Engineer, WRO, Public Works Department, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.

¶43

2.The District Collector, Salem District,

¶44

Salem.

¶45

_________ Page 2 of 7

¶46

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

¶47

W.P.Nos.2758 and 2760 of 2021

¶48

3.The Sub-Collector, Mettur, Salem District.

¶49

4.The Tahsildar,

¶50

Mettur, Salem District.

¶51

... Respondents

¶52

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to forbear the respondents from laying pipelines in the petitioners agricultural patta land at S.Nos.195/2, 151/2L, 151/3G, 188/1, 151/2C, 151/2K, 151/3C, 151/3H, 186/5, 253/2A, 183/3A, 152/1D, 151/1E, 152/IE2, 183/3A & 182/3B, Pappambadi Village, Omalur Taluk, Salem District, connecting Vellalapuram Lake and Vadukampatti Lake, without due process of law.

¶53

In both petitions

¶54

For Petitioners : Mr.S.Parthasarathy For Respondents : Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fisal Additional Government Pleader

¶55

C O M M O N O R D E R

¶56

The Writ Petition in W.P.No.2758 of 2021 has been filed to

¶57

forbear the respondents from constructing canal in the petitioners' agricultural patta land situated at Survey Nos.87/1B2, 87/1E, 86/4, 86/5B,

¶58

Page 3 of 7

¶59

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

¶60

W.P.Nos.2758 and 2760 of 2021

¶61

91/4B and 91/2B, in Soorapalli Village, Mettur Division, Salem District connecting Kuppampatti lake and Jalagandapuram lake, without due process of law.

¶62

The Writ Petition in W.P.No.2760 of 2021 has been filed to forbear the respondents from laying pipelines in the petitioners' agricultural patta land situated at S.Nos.195/2, 151/2L, 151/3G, 188/1, 151/2C, 151/2K, 151/3C, 151/3H, 186/5, 253/2A, 183/3A, 152/1D, 151/1E, 152/IE2, 183/3A & 182/3B, in Pappambadi Village, Omalur Taluk, Salem District, connecting Vellalapuram Lake and Vadukampatti Lake, without due process of law.

¶63

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in both the writ petitions submits that the petitioners are the owners of the aforesaid properties and though the properties of the petitioners were utilized by the respondents for laying pipelines and constructing canal, no fair compensation was given. Hence, the writ petitions have been filed.

¶64

_________ Page 4 of 7

¶65

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

¶66

W.P.Nos.2758 and 2760 of 2021

¶67

The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that during the pendency of this petition, in respect of the lands belonging to the petitioners utilized by the respondents, an award was passed in Na.Ka.No.2203/2024/E dated .08.2024 and the amount was deposited before the concerned Court.

¶68

In view of the above submission made by the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, no further order is required to be passed in this writ petition. Accordingly, these Writ Petitions are disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to file appropriate application before the concerned Court for reimbursement of the compensation. There shall be no order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶69

12.08.2024

¶70

NCC: Yes / No Index : Yes / No Speaking Order : Yes / No ssb

¶71

_________ Page 5 of 7

¶72

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

¶73

W.P.Nos.2758 and 2760 of 2021

¶74

¶75

The Principal Chief Engineer, WRO, Public Works Department, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.

¶76

2.The District Collector, Salem District, Salem.

¶77

3.The Sub-Collector, Mettur, Salem District.

¶78

4.The Tahsildar, Mettur, Salem District.

¶79

_________ Page 6 of 7

¶80

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

¶81

W.P.Nos.2758 and 2760 of 2021

¶82

M.DHANDAPANI, J.

¶83

ssb

¶84

W.P.Nos.2758 and 2760 of 2021 and W.M.P.Nos.3097 and 3106 of 2021

¶85

12.08.2024

¶86

_________ Page 7 of 7

¶87

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

V.R.Saravanan v. The Principal Chief Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.R.Saravanan v. The Principal Chief Engineer

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

M/S.Bnr Infrastructure Projects (P) Ltd., Vs Tamilnadu Urban Habitat Development Board(Tnudb)

M.Sagadevan Vs S.Venkatesh

M/s.K.Janakiraman Vs Reserve Bank of India

M/S.Sri Ayyappa Modern Rice Vs the Tamilnadu Industrial

M.Subramani Vs the Superintending Engineer

A.Duraisamy Vs The Electricity Ombudsman