P.Palanichamy v. The District Collector
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 20.06.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR and W.M.P(MD) Nos.12565 and 12576 of 2025 P.Palanichamy S/o.Pinnathevar, Partner of P.R.P. Exports, Therkkutheru Village, Melur Taluk, Madurai District.
... Petitioner (in both petitions) Vs.
1.The District Collector, Collectorate Campus, Madurai.
2.The Land Acquisition Officer/Special District Revenue Officer, Land Acquisition Highways, Collectorate Campus, Madurai.
3.The Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition Highways, Collectorate Campus, Madurai.
... Respondents (in both petitions)
Common Prayer :- Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 2 and 3 herein to consider the petitioner's representation by a way of objection dated 09.12.2024 and reminder representation dated 31.05.2025 and pass appropriate orders to formulate new road alignment for the proposed alternate road to Madurai ring road instead of vehicular under pass in view of expansion of Madurai airport in Valayankulam Village, Thiruparankundram Taluk, Madurai District, within a time stipulated by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Meenakshisundaram For Respondents : Mr.A.Baskaran Additional Government Pleader (in both petitions) COMMON ORDER These writ petitions are filed seeking a direction to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 09.12.2024 and the reminder representation dated 31.05.2024 objecting to the proposed formation of alternate road to Madurai ring road instead of vehicular underpass.
2.Heard the arguments of Mr.V.Meenakshi Sundaram, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.A.Baskaran, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that he owned the property situated in Survey Nos.69/1A, 19/2 and 19/5A, Valayankulam Village, Thiruparankundram Taluk, Madurai District. The second respondent issued a notification under Section 15(2) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act for formation of an alternate road to Madurai ring road instead of vehicular underpass. In response to 15(2) notification, the petitioner submitted his objection for acquisition of land. According to the petitioner, the objection raised by him has not been considered and thereafter, 19(2) notice has been issued on 12.06.2025, calling upon the petitioner to participate in the enquiry for determination of compensation. Since the objection raised by the petitioner has not been considered, he has come before this Court.
4.It is seen from the records that subsequent to 15(2) notification dated 22.11.2024, the respondents issued a final notification under
Section15(1) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act on 05.05.2025. A reading of Section 15(1) read with Section 16(1) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act makes it clear that on publication of notification under Section 15(1), the property covered by the notification is vested with the Government free from all encumbrances. Subsequently, the respondents issued a notification under Section 19(2) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, calling upon the petitioner to attend the enquiry for determination of compensation. At this stage, the petitioner submitted another representation on 31.05.2025 objecting to alignment of the project. The same has not been considered. Hence, the petitioner has come before this Court.
5.It is pertinent to note that in the original objection raised by the petitioner subsequent to 15(2) notification on 09.12.2024, the petitioner has not raised any specific objection with regard to the alignment of the projects. Thereafter, 15(1) notice was issued on 05.05.2025 and the subject property is vested with the Government. Subsequently, at the stage of 19(2) enquiry, the petitioner submitted an objection on 31.05.2025 objecting to alignment of the projects. The petitioner is not
entitled to object to the alignment without challenging the final notification issued under Section 15(1) of Tamil Nadu Highways Act. Further, in the objection raised by the petitioner during 15(2) enquiry, he has not raised any objection with regard to the alignment. In these circumstances, this Court is not inclined to issue any direction to the respondents to consider the objection raised by the petitioner at this belated stage.
6.Accordingly, these Writ Petitions are dismissed. However, the dismissal of the writ petitions will not come in the way of petitioner challenging the 15(1) notification in the manner known to law. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 20.06.2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No cp
To 1.The District Collector, Collectorate Campus, Madurai.
2.The Land Acquisition Officer/Special District Revenue Officer, Land Acquisition Highways, Collectorate Campus, Madurai.
3.The Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition Highways, Collectorate Campus, Madurai.
S.SOUNTHAR ,J cp 20.06.2025