Dismissed

V.Nagusamy, v. The Superintending Engineer

Madras HC9 Jan 2024WP/4661/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging the widening of a canal on petitioners' land, the court found that land acquisition proceedings were initiated and compensation was settled, negating the cause for an injunction.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition was dismissed as the cause for an injunction no longer existed due to the initiation and settlement of land acquisition proceedings.

V.Nagusamy, Vs The Superintending Engineer — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.4661 of 2015

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 09.01.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶6

W.P. No.4661 of 2015 and

¶7

W.M.P. No.1 of 2015

¶8

V. Nagusamy S/o. Velumuthu Naidu

¶9

R. Rukumani W/o. Rajamanickam

¶10

S.N. Sivasubramaniam S/o. Periya Nachimuthu Gounder

¶11

S. Thulasimani W/o. P. Sivasubramaniam

¶12

K. Kanakaraj S/o. Kandasamy

¶13

K. Selvakumar S/o. Kandasamy

¶14

P. Muthusamy S/o. Palanisamy Gounder

¶15

P. Murugesan S/o. N. Palanisamy

¶16

P. Karuppusamy S/o. N. Palanisamy 10. C. Selvaraj S/o. Chellamuthu Gounder

¶17

M. Nandhakumar S/o. Mayilsamy Gounder

¶18

P. Karuppusamy Gounder S/o. Periyasamy Gounder

¶19

S. Mahendran S/o. Subramani

¶20

N. Gopalan S/o. Nachimuthu Gounder

¶21

K. Lalitha W/o. Kathirvel 16. C. Thirumalaisamy S/o. Chinnasamy Gounder 17. S. Chinnasamy Gounder S/o. Subbaiah Gounder 18. K. Rathinasamy S/o. Koundappa Gounder

¶22

... Petitioners

¶23

Vs.

¶24

The Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department, Water Resource Department, Parambikulam – Aliyar Basin Circle, Pollachi – 3. ..... Respondents

¶25

Page 1 of 6

¶26

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

¶27

W.P.No.4661 of 2015

¶28

Prayer:

¶29

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

¶30

to issue a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondent from digging and widening the canal in the petitioners' land situated in S.F. Nos.86/2, 161, 207 and 210, 161/2, 218/5, 207/4 situated at Velayuthampalayam Village, Dharapuram Taluk, Tiruppur District and S.F. Nos.92, 82/3C1, 82/3A, 82 and 83, 85/A2 and 85/A2C, 85/B1A and 85/B1C, 92/4, 92/6 and 51, situated at Kethelrev Village, Dharapuram Taluk, Tiruppur District unless due process of law.

¶31

For Petitioner : Mr. C. Prakasam For Respondents : Mr. G. Ameedius, Government Advocate.

¶32

ORDER

¶33

This Writ petition of Mandamus has been instituted to forbear the respondents from digging and widening the canal in the petitioners' land situated at Velayuthampalayam and Kethelrev Village, Dharapuram Taluk, Tiruppur District .

¶34

The grievance of the petitioners are that the respondent department

¶35

have interfered with the patta land for the purpose of widening the canal project. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has stated that the

¶36

Page 2 of 6

¶37

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

¶38

W.P.No.4661 of 2015

¶39

Land Acquisition proceedings were not initiated and the authorities have illegally interfered with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property of the Writ petitioners. Thus, the present Writ petition has been filed.

¶40

The Writ petition was filed in the year 2015 and during the pendency of the Writ petition, the authorities have conducted negotiations and initiated Land Acquisition proceedings for the purpose of widening the canal project. The status report filed by the respondent reveals that the Land Acquisition proceedings were initiated and the compensation, due to the owners, were settled. The details regarding these facts are stated in the Status report as follows:-

¶41

“3. I humbly submit that as per the actual alignment of canal, consent has been already obtained from eligible land owners except the land holders corresponding to S.F. No.86/2A, (petitioner 1,2) and S.F. No.161/1 (petitioner 7) who have raised their objections for land acquisition.

¶42

4. I humbly submit that in continuation of negotiations held by

¶43

Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharapuram with Mr. Narendra

¶44

Page 3 of 6

¶45

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

¶46

W.P.No.4661 of 2015

¶47

Babu S/o. V. Nagusamy and Mrs. Saraswathi W/o. V. Nagusamy, the legal heirs of the petitioner late V. Nagusamy (1^st petitioner), necessary consent for land acquisition has been obtained for Survey No.86/2A, further, the land acquisition for an extent of 0.12.00 Hectare has been completed with settlement of compensation amount of Rs.2,44,696/- as informed vide Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharapuram letter no.Na.Ka.156/2016/A dated 19.07.2022 and land transfer registration process has been completed in Sub Register Office, Dharapuram vide Registration document No.7456/2022 dated 14.07.2022.

¶48

5. It is humbly submitted that Mrs. R. Rukumani W/o.

¶49

Rajamanickam (2^nd petitioner) does not have land possession in particular stretch of the land acquired for canal formation in S.F. No.86/2A of Velayathampalayam Village.

¶50

6. I respectfully submit that Mr. Muthusamy (7^th petitioner), Mr. Velusamy and Mr. Mayilsamy, Sons of Mr. Palanisamy Gounder with respect to Survey No.161/1 gave their consent for the land acquisition with settlement of compensation amount of

¶51

Page 4 of 6

¶52

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

¶53

W.P.No.4661 of 2015

¶54

Rs.5,78,093/- and acquisition has been completed in SubRegister Office, Dharapuram vide registration document No.5751/2019 dated 05.08.2019.

¶55

7. It is respectfully submitted that the land acquisition process, pertaining to this Writ petition, is completed by Water Resources Department and Revenue Department and the compensation was settled without any due to eligible land owners”.

¶56

In view of the above facts and circumstances, the cause for issuing

¶57

an order of injuction as such sought for in the present Writ petition did not exist. If any other grievance exist to the petitioners, they are at liberty to approach the competent authority for their redressal.

¶58

With these observations, this Writ petition stands dismissed. No

¶59

order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶60

09.01.2024

¶61

Index : yes/no Speaking order/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation : yes/no mjs

¶62

Page 5 of 6

¶63

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

¶64

W.P.No.4661 of 2015

¶65

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

¶66

mjs

¶67

¶68

The Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department, Water Resource Department, Parambikulam – Aliyar Basin Circle, Pollachi – 3.

¶69

W.P.No.4661 of 2015

¶70

09.01.2024

¶71

Page 6 of 6

¶72

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

V.Nagusamy, v. The Superintending Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Nagusamy, v. The Superintending Engineer

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

K.S.Udayakumar Vs The District Registrar of Societies

The Secretary Vs The Estate Officer

K.K.Palanisamy Vs The Sate of Tamil Nadu

T.Balan Vs the Presiding Officer

N.Govindarajan Vs The District Collector

Sri Shakthi Institute of Vs Union of India,Ministry of