Court dismissed writ petition seeking compensation for trees cut to widen NH 22. Held trees belonged to District Board; petitioner had only usufructuary rights, not ownership, rendering claim without merit.
Writ petition dismissed; no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.No.4797 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 01.04.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
W.P.No.4797 of 2021
-Vs-
Page 1 of 6
W.P.No.4797 of 2021
5.The Project Director,
Project Implementation Unit, National Highways Authority, Villupuram, Villupuram District. ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to pay the compensation for trees to be cutting for the widening of Road viz., NH 22 from Trichy to Chidambaram at 66/7-8, 67– 68 Miles, based on the petitioner's representation dated 04.06.2018.
For Petitioners : Mr.V.Sivaraman for
Mr.K.Balu
For R1 to R3 : Mr.U.Baranidharan Additional Government Pleader For R4 & R5 : Mr.Su.Srinivasan
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed for direction directing the
respondents to pay the compensation for trees to be cut for widening of Road viz., NH 22 from Trichy to Chidambaram at 66/7-8, 67– 68 Miles, based on the petitioner's representation dated 04.06.2018.
2. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the
materials available on record.
Page 2 of 6
W.P.No.4797 of 2021
Page 3 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.4797 of 2021
Trichy to Chidambaram. Accordingly, the third respondent issued notice to the respective land patta holders and land owners. They had appeared before the Acquisition Officer and received compensation. However, the petitioner was not awarded any compensation for the tress which were cut down for the extension of road.
father and the District Board office, registered vide Document No.3317 of
1956 revealed as follows:-
“ ku';fs; el;l c&hfhf;fSk; ku';fSk; j';fSf;nf ghj;jpak; vdf;F ghj;jpak; ,y;iy/ ic& ku';fspy; cz;lhFk; kfR{y; gyd;fis kl;Lk; ehDk; vd; thupRfSk; mila ghj;jpak; ic& rhiyapy; nkYk; nkYk; ku';fs; itj;J ghJfhj;J fha;g;g[ ku';fspd; kfR{y; gyd;fis kl;LmilntDft[k; ,e;j epge;jidfspd; nghpy; jh';fs; ic& ku';fsl el;L gapupl mDkjp bfhLj;jpUf;fpwPu;fs;/”
the trees which were planted by the petitioner belongs to District Board and the petitioner was permitted to enjoy only the usfructs of the trees. Further, it is also seen from the permission which was granted by the District Board Office, through the proceedings dated 25.04.1956 that the
Page 4 of 6
W.P.No.4797 of 2021
petitioner's father was permitted to enjoy only the usufructs of the trees planted by him. Therefore, though the petitioner was permitted to plant trees, he was not permitted to own the trees. Therefore, the petitioner was given permission only to enjoy the usufructs of the trees. That apart, the two sides of the Tiruchi-Chidambaram Road at 67/4-8, 68/1 miles belongs to the fifth respondent and as such, the petitioner is not entitled for any compensation for the trees which were planted by his father. Therefore, the representation submitted by the petitioner cannot be considered and this writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.
order as to costs.
01.04.2024
Internet: Yes Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation: Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking order mn
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,
Page 5 of 6
W.P.No.4797 of 2021
mn
To
W.P.No.4797 of 2021
01.04.2024
Page 6 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation for trees planted by his father on district board road land without ownership rights.
Whether the trees planted by the petitioner's father belong to the District Board rather than the petitioner.
Whether the representation seeking compensation for cut trees has legal merits.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Dhayalan represented by Ezhilarasan
The District Collector, Ariyalur
The Revenue Divisional Officer, Udayarpalayam Taluk
Competent Authority and Special District Revenue Officer (Land Acquisition) National Highways Authority
The Special Tahsildhar Land Acquisition Unit-II
The Project Director, National Highways Authority
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
