Allowed

The Deputy General Manager v. S.M.a.S.Mohamed Mydeen

Madras HC25 Jun 2025WA(MD)/1678/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court set aside a single Judge's order enhancing land compensation because the writ petition was not maintainable despite statutory remedies. However, the appeal was allowed on merits, directing the District Collector to dispose of the matter under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act within three months.

What did the court decide?

Writ Appeal allowed; original Writ Petition order set aside; writ petitioner permitted to file objection before District Collector under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956, to be dispose

The Deputy General Manager Vs S.M.a.S.Mohamed Mydeen — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.A(MD)No.1678 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 25.06.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR

¶6

W.A(MD)No.1678 of 2025 and

¶7

C.M.P(MD)Nos.9411 & 9412 of 2025

¶8

The Deputy General Manager (Technical) cum Project Director, National Highways Authority of India, Project Implementation Unit, No.39, III-Cross Street, Kalyana Sundaram Nagar, Karumandapam, Tiruchi – 620 001.

¶9

... Appellant / 3^rd Party Vs.

¶10

1.S.M.A.S.Mohamed Mydeen, S/o.AyyavuShiek Saibu, Asath Road, Elangakurichi, Manaparai Taluk, Trichy District. ... Respondent / Writ Petitioner

¶11

2.The District Collector, Tiruchirappalli District.

¶12

3.The Special Officer cum District Revenue Divisional Officer

¶13

(Land Acquisition),

¶14

1/6

¶15

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

¶16

W.A(MD)No.1678 of 2025

¶17

Perambalur, Tiruchirapalli, And Thanjavur District, National Highways No.45, Tiruchirappalli.

¶18

... Respondents / Respondents

¶19

Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the order passed by this Court dated 19.08.2024 made in W.P(MD)No.4117 of 2016.

¶20

For Appellant : Mr.P.Karthick

¶21

For Respondents : Mr.H.Thayumanasamy for R.1

¶22

Mr.N.Ramesh Arumugam Government Advocate for R.2 & R.3

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

(Judgment of the Court was made by G.R.Swaminathan J. )

¶25

Heard both sides.

¶26

2.The petition mentioned land was acquired under the provisions of the

¶27

National Highways Act, 1956. The Special Officer cum District Revenue Officer (Land Acquisition), Perambalur, Tiruchirappalli passed an award fixing the compensation.

¶28

3.The learned counsel for the appellant would claim that the writ petitioner had not proved his title and that therefore no direction has been

¶29

2/6

¶30

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

¶31

W.A(MD)No.1678 of 2025

¶32

issued for disbursing the compensation amount to him. This contention is contested by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner.

¶33

4.We need not go into this factual aspect at all. If the writ petitioner felt aggrieved by the award passed by the competent authority, then the remedy open to the writ petitioner was to move the District Collector under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956. Instead of adhering to the statutory procedure, the writ petitioner chose to move the writ Court by filing W.P(MD)No.4117 of 2016. The said writ petition was allowed vide order dated 19.08.2024. The learned single Judge had enhanced the compensation and directed it to be paid to the writ petitioner.

¶34

5.We are clearly of the view that the writ itself was not maintainable. When a statute prescribes a certain procedure, that procedure alone ought to be adopted. Once the competent authority passes an award, the remedy is to go before the District Collector under Section 3G(5) of Act. If the District Collector's arbitral award is also not acceptable, then the only remedy is go before the District Court under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Since the Writ Petition itself was not maintainable, the order passed by the learned single Judge is liable to be set aside. It is accordingly set aside.

¶35

3/6

¶36

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

¶37

W.A(MD)No.1678 of 2025

¶38

However, taking into account the special facts and circumstances of this case, we permit the writ petitioner to avail the remedy under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner states that within a week he will move the District Collector under the aforesaid provision. If the writ petitioner files any such petition, the District Collector, Trichy shall take it on file without reference to limitation. He is also directed to dispose it of on merits and in accordance with law within a period of three months thereafter. We are conscious that normally the District Collector can take one year to dispose of such petitions. Considering the fact that the writ petitioner is aged about 80 years and the cause of action dates back in 2015, such a direction has been given and we call upon the District Collector to adhere to the time limit stipulated by us.

¶39

6.Leaving open all the contentions of the parties, this Writ Appeal stands allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶40

[G.R.S., J.] [K.R.S., J.] 25.06.2025

¶41

NCC : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No MGA

¶42

Note: Issue order copy on 27.06.2025.

¶43

4/6

¶44

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

¶45

W.A(MD)No.1678 of 2025

¶46

¶47

1.S.M.A.S.Mohamed Mydeen, S/o.AyyavuShiek Saibu, Asath Road, Elangakurichi, Manaparai Taluk, Trichy District.

¶48

2.The District Collector, Tiruchirappalli District.

¶49

3.The Special Officer cum District Revenue Divisional Officer

¶50

(Land Acquisition), Perambalur, Tiruchirapalli, And Thanjavur District, National Highways No.45, Tiruchirappalli.

¶51

5/6

¶52

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

¶53

W.A(MD)No.1678 of 2025

¶54

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J

¶55

and K.RAJASEKAR, J.

¶56

MGA

¶57

W.A(MD)No.1678 of 2025

¶58

25.06.2025

¶59

6/6

¶60

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

The Deputy General Manager v. S.M.a.S.Mohamed Mydeen

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Deputy General Manager v. S.M.a.S.Mohamed Mydeen

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

Dr.Rajan Vs The Principal Secretary to Union of India

V.Ramakrishnan Vs S.Pandian

the Government of Tamilnadu Vs M.Rosario Kayalvizhi

The Deputy General Manager Vs Ravi.v.R

Sangan Vs Neelamegam

R.Manoharan Vs Sri Rengalatchumi Educational Trust