Allowed

S.Thangamani, v. Union of India

Madras HC25 Jun 2024WP/4811/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court analyzed the petitioner's grievance regarding non-referral of a representation for compensation redetermination under Section 64 of the Land Acquisition Act, 2013. It held that the Collector must refer the written objection to the concerned authority for redetermination within two months.

What did the court decide?

The 2nd respondent directed to refer the petitioner's written objection to the authority concerned for redetermination of compensation within two months of receiving this order.

S.Thangamani, Vs Union of India — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.4811 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 25..06..2024

¶4

Coram

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

Writ Petition No.4811 of 2024

S.Thangamani

..... Petitioner

-Versus-

1.Union of India, Rep. By its Secretary, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, New Delhi.

¶11

2.The District Collector, O/o Collectorate, Krishnagiri District 635 115.

¶12

3.Competent Authority & The Special District Revenue Officer, (Land Acquisition), National Highway-7, 46,47 & 66, Salem-Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri 635 115.

¶13

..... Respondents

¶14

*Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 3^rd respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 08.05.2023 and refer the letter Na.Ka.490/2022/(B4) dated 30.11.2022 to re-determine the compensation under Section 3-G(5) under the National Highways Act, 1956, within the time to be fixed by this court.

¶15

*[Prayer amended as per order of this court dated 25.06.2024 made in W.M.P.No.11986 of 2024]

¶16

.....Respondents

¶17

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

¶18

1 of 4

¶19

W.P.No.4811 of 2024

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Rajasekhar For Respondent (s) : Mr.T.L.Thirumalaisamy, CGSC for R1 Mr.P.Sathish, AGP for RR2 & 3

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This writ petition has been filed seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the 3^rd respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 08.05.2023 and refer the letter Na.Ka.490/2022/(B4) dated 30.11.2022 to redetermine the compensation under Section 3-G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956, within the time to be fixed by this court.

¶23

It is the case of the petitioner that Award in this matter was passed on

¶24

30.11.2022. The grievance of the petitioner is that though he made an application on 08.05.2023 within six months from the date of award as per Section 64 of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, no reference was made till date.

¶25

Heard both sides.

¶26

If any application is made by a person interested raising objection as to the fixation of amount of compensation within the six months time as stipulated under Section 64, the Collector has to make a reference for the determination

¶27

of the amount of compensation by the Authority concerned. This was not

¶28

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

¶29

2 of 4

¶30

W.P.No.4811 of 2024

¶31

admittedly done in the instant case. Therefore, the 2^nd respondent is directed to refer the written objection made by the petitioner as to the determination of amount of compensation as per the law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to the authority concerned for redetermination of amount of compensation for the land acquired from the petitioner.

¶32

This writ petition is disposed of accordingly with the above directions. No costs.

¶33

Index : yes / no 25..06..2024 Neutral Citation : yes / no Speaking / Non Speaking Order kmk

¶34

¶35

1.The Secretary, Union of India, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, New Delhi.

¶36

2.The District Collector, O/o Collectorate, Krishnagiri District 635 115.

¶37

3.Competent Authority & The Special District Revenue Officer, (Land Acquisition), National Highway-7, 46,47 & 66, Salem-Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri 635 115.

¶38

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3 of 4

¶39

W.P.No.4811 of 2024

¶40

N.SATHISH KUMAR.J.,

¶41

kmk

¶42

Writ Petition No.4811 of 2024

¶43

25..06..2024

¶44

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

S.Thangamani, v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Thangamani, v. Union of India

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

Kaliammal Vs the Special District Revenue Officer

Balamurugan Vs the Special District Revenue Officer

Udhayakumar Vs the Special District Revenue Officer

M.Vadivelu Vs the District Collector

Gunasekaran Vs The Inspector General of Registration

K.Malarvizhi Vs The commissioner