Rajaram Vs Union of India

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent the District Collector (Revenue) to consider the petitioner's representation dated 25.01.2019 and 04.10.2024 to redetermine the compensation awarded to the petitioner for his lands mentioned above in the tabular column measuring an extent of 1.52.71 Ares acquired at Karasur Revenue Village in Award No.2/2008 to a sum of Rs.21.261/- per Are, pursuant to the enhanced compensation award passed in LAOP No.110/2012 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Puducherry.

¶23

For Petitioners : Mr.Venkatesulu R. For Respondents : Mr.V.Vasantha Kumar for R1 to R3 Additional Government Pleader (Pondicherry)

¶24

ORDER

¶25

By consent of learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶26

2.The present writ petition is filed praying for a writ of mandamus,

¶27

to direct the 2 nd respondent District Collector (Revenue) to consider petitioner's representation dated 25.01.2019 and 04.10.2024 to redetermine the compensation awarded to petitioners for their lands measuring an extent of 1.52.71 ares acquired at Karasur Revenue Village in Award No.2/2008 at Rs.21.261/- per are, in terms of enhanced 2/6

¶28

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

¶29

W.P.No.15597 of 2025

¶30

compensation award passed in LAOP No.110/2012 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Puducherry.

¶31

3 . It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner filed a representation on 25.01.2019 and 04.10.2024 seeking enhanced compensation. However, the said representations have not been considered so far by 2 nd respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come before this Court.

¶32

4.On this being pointed out, the learned Additional Government Pleader (Pondicherry) would submit that the petitioners' representations dated 25.01.2019 and 04.10.2024 for redetermination of compensation awarded to petitioners was rejected pursuant to the enhanced compensation award passed in LAOP No.110/2012 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Puducherry. It was thus submitted that the petitioners would have now come to challenge the order.

¶33

5.It is open to the petitioner to work out remedy in accordance with

¶34

3/6

¶35

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

¶36

W.P.No.15597 of 2025

¶37

law. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any views with regard to the merits of the representations.

¶38

6.In view thereof, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.