Madras High CourtWP/3692/2018disposed of

G.Munirathinam, v. The District Collector,

2018-07-23Honourable Mr Justice K. Kalyanasundaram3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 23.07.2018

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM WP.No.3692 of 2018 G.Munirathinam

...Petitioner

Vs.

1. The District Collector, Collectorate Office, Sathuvachari, Vellore -9.

2. The District Revenue Officer, Vellore District, Vellore.

3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Vellore -9.

4. The Tahsildar, Pernampattu Taluk, Vellore.

5. The Block Development Officer, Palallakuppam Village, Pernampattu Taluk, Vellore District.

...Respondents

[R5 impleaded suo motu, as per the order of this Court, dated 15.03.2018, in W.P.No.3692 of 2018.] PRAYER:

Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to consider the representation dated 08.07.2016 and 01.12.2017 and give appropriate and fair compensation for the lands and trees acquired in S.Nos.114/1 (80.5 Ares), 114/2 (71.5 Ares) and 115/1 (28.0 Ares) in the Palallakuppam Village, Pernampattu Taluk, Vellore District. For Petitioner : Mr.A.Vimal Raj For Respondents : Mr.D.Raja, AGP

ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents and perused the materials available on record.

2. The prayer in the writ petition is for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to consider the representations of the petitioner dated 08.07.2016 and 01.12.2017 and give appropriate and fair compensation for the lands acquired from him.

3. The petitioner would state that he owned agricultural lands in Palallakuppam Village, Pernampattu Taluk, Vellore District in S.Nos.114/1 (80.5 Ares), 114/2 (71.5 Ares) and 115/1 (28.0 Ares), and he was issued with patta and he had planted Teak Wood Trees, Coconut Trees, Tamarind Trees and Guava Trees. The land was acquired in the year 1993 under private negotiation.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since no compensation was paid, the petitioner sent representations dated 08.07.2016 and 01.12.2017. Even then, there is no favourable response from the respondents. It is further submitted that the petitioner would be satisfied, if a direction is issued to the first respondent to consider his representations.

5. The learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that the first respondent is ready to consider the representations of the petitioner in accordance with law.

6. In the typed set of papers, a copy of the patta No.340 has been enclosed, which shows that the petitioner was the owner of the lands referred above and the same were acquired by the respondents.

7. In the light of the above facts and also considering the nature of prayer sought for in this writ petition, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, directs the first respondent to consider the representations of the petitioner dated 08.07.2016 and 01.12.2017 and pass appropriate orders, on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

8. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

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