Allowed

Subramaniyan v. The District Collector

Madras HC22 Aug 2024WP(MD)/20021/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench held that the authorities cannot insist on a death certificate for the original landholder when a prior decree establishes succession. The petition was allowed, directing respondents to pay compensation within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to disburse compensation within eight weeks considering pleadings in O.S.No.26 of 2018, without insisting on death certificate.

Subramaniyan Vs The District Collector — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.20021 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 22.08.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.20021 of 2024

¶7

Subramaniyan .. Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The District Collector, District Collector Office, Ramanathapuram.

¶10

2.The Special District Revenue Officer(L.A) National Highway-49, Ramanathapuram District.

¶11

3.The Special Tahsildar(L.A) National Highway-49 Madurai to Dhanushkodi Extension Project-Unit-1(Old Project) Paramakudi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District. .. Respondents

¶12

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

¶13

praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to forthwith provide compensation amount with interest to the petitioner for

¶14

_________Page 1 of 6

¶15

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

¶16

W.P.(MD) No.20021 of 2024

¶17

acquired land to the extent of 209 square feet in Survey No.266/2, in Kattuparamakudi Revenue Village, Paramakudi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District, for the purpose of Madurai to Dhanushkodi(NH-49) Road, based on the petitioner's representation dated 04.09.2023 within a stipulated time that may be fixed by this Court.

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Senthilkumar For Respondents : Mr.B.Saravanan Additional Government Pleader

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to direct the respondents

¶21

to provide compensation amount with interest to the petitioner for his land acquired to an extent of 209 square feet in Survey No.266/2, at Kattuparamakudi Revenue Village, Paramakudi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District, for the purpose of the Madurai to Dhanushkodi(NH-49) Road, based on the petitioner's representation dated 04.09.2023 within a stipulated time.

¶22

_________Page 2 of 6

¶23

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

¶24

W.P.(MD) No.20021 of 2024

¶25

The case of the petitioner is that the property in S.No.266/2 to an extent of 0.50.0 hectares situated in Kattuparamakudi Revenue Village, Paramakudi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District, was originally belonged to one Palani, who is the parental grandfather of the petitioner herein. After the death of the said Palani, the property devolved upon the petitioner's father and other legal heirs. The aforesaid survey number was allotted to the petitioner's father in the partition made in the suit in O.S.No.26 of 2018. After the death of the petitioner's father, he obtained the property as he is his only legal heir. In such circumstances, the respondents had acquired some portion of the land for extension of Madurai to Dhanushkodi and sub-divided the acquired land as S.No. 266/2B and the remaining land in his grandfather's name in S.No.266/2 to an extent of 0.47.90 hectares. After acquiring the said land, the respondents had not paid any compensation amount. Therefore, he made a representation to the respondents on 04.09.2023. Pursuant to which, the third respondent sent a letter dated 21.09.2023 calling upon him to produce the related documents for compensation on 21.09.2023. Based on which, the petitioner has given all relevant documents to the third

¶26

_________Page 3 of 6

¶27

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

¶28

W.P.(MD) No.20021 of 2024

¶29

respondent on 05.10.2023. So far the compensation amount has not been disbursed. Hence, the present writ petition is filed.

¶30

3.The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, on instructions, would submit that no document has been filed to show that the original pattadhar Palani had passed away. However, the authorities have overlooked the judgment and decree in O.S.No.26 of 2018, filed for partition, in which, it has been clearly narrated that the property originally belonged to Palani and the parties to the suit were his legal representatives who are entitled to a share in the property.

¶31

4.In the light of the above, the demand made by the authorities appears misconceived. Therefore, the respondents shall consider the petitioner's representation dated 04.09.2023 and take necessary steps for disbursing the compensation amount that would be payable to the petitioner, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, without insisting upon the death certificate of Palani

¶32

_________Page 4 of 6

¶33

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

¶34

W.P.(MD) No.20021 of 2024

¶35

and considering the pleadings in O.S.No.26 of 2018.

¶36

5.With the above direction, this Writ Petition stands allowed. No

¶37

costs.

¶38

22.08.2024

¶39

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes To 1.The District Collector, District Collector Office, Ramanathapuram.

¶40

2.The Special District Revenue Officer(L.A) National Highway-49, Ramanathapuram District.

¶41

3.The Special Tahsildar(L.A) National Highway-49 Madurai to Dhanushkodi Extension Project-Unit-1(Old Project) Paramakudi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District.

¶42

_________Page 5 of 6

¶43

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

¶44

W.P.(MD) No.20021 of 2024

¶45

P.T.ASHA, J.

¶46

¶47

W.P.(MD) No.20021 of 2024

¶48

Dated: 22.08.2024

¶49

_________Page 6 of 6

¶50

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

Subramaniyan v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subramaniyan 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

Mohamed Ibrahim Rahman. S Vs The Director of Town and Country Planning

Easwaran, Vs the Tahsildar

Christopher Gonzalvez Vs the District Revenue Officer

R.Muthukumar Vs The District Collector

Sethuraman Vs the Revenue Divisional

M.Muniasamy Vs The Sub-Collector