Madras High CourtWP/9130/2018disposed of

C.Arumugam, S/O.Chinnaiya v. The Secretary To Government

2018-04-16Honourable Mr Justice K. Kalyanasundaram3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 16.04.2018

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM W.P.No.9130 of 2018 C.Arumugam ... Petitioner v.

1. The Secretary to Government, Industrial Department,

2. The Secretary to Government, Finance Department,

3. The Managing Director, SIPCOT, Egmore, Chennai - 600 008.

4. The District Collector, Kancheepuram District.

5. The Special Tahsildhar (L.A.) SIPCOT, Unit-I, Sriperumbudur Expansion Scheme-II, Sriperumbudur, Kancheepuram.

...

Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to disburse the interest for the amount of compensation awarded from the date of acquisition of the petitioner's land as per Section 12 of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Lands for Industrial Purpose Act, 1997 (Act No.10 of 1999) and by considering the petitioner representation dated 11.12.2017.

For Petitioner : M/s.J.C.Durairaj For Respondents : Mr.D.Raja, AGP (for RR1,2,4 and 5) Mrs.B.Sudharsana Sundar, (for R3)

ORDER

Mr.D.Raja, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents 1,2,4 & 5 and Mrs.B.Sudharsana Sundar, learned Standing Counsel takes notice for the 3rd respondent. By consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for final hearing at the admission stage itself.

2. The case of the petitioner is that in the year 2009, the Government initiated acquisition proceedings for establishment of SIPCOT, Sriperumbudur Expansion Scheme, No.II. The respondents have taken possession of the land of the petitioner in the year 2012, but an award was passed only on 30.03.2015.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is entitled for interest as per Section 12 of the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purpose Act. The petitioner made representation to the respondents on 11.12.2017, despite the same, there is no response. Hence, the present Writ Petition.

4. The learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents submitted that the representation of the petitioner would be considered by the 5th respondent in accordance with law.

5. In the light of the above submissions of the learned counsels on either side, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, directs the 5th respondent to pass appropriate orders on the representation of the petitioner dated 11.12.2017, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of twelve weeks, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the necessary parties.

6. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-V) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar pvs To