Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
Therefore, leaving it open to the petitioner to work out herremedies under the Act itself before the District Collector, this writpetition is dismissed
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 2222. Heard Mr. N. Vallinayagam, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. K. K. Senthilvelan, learned Assistant Solicitor Generalfor the second respondent and Mr. B. Pugalendhi, learned SpecialGovernment Pleader for other respondents. 3. The land of an extent of 252 Sq.M., in Block No.10 inT.S.No.1/11B belonging…
Judgment
1BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED :: 20.10.2011CORAM ::THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIANW.P.(MD)No.7978 of 2011 Thirumathi. Pandiammal...... Petitioner –Vs -1. The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai.
Project Director, National High Way No.7, Door No.83/1, State Bank 1st Colony Extension, Bye-Pass Road, Madurai - 625 016.
The Special District Revenue Officer, Land Acquisition (National High Way No.7 & 45 B), Virudhunagar.
The Special District Revenue Officer, Land Acquisition (National High Way Nos.44 & 38), Virudhunagar.
The Special Thasildar (Land Acquisition), National Highways Planning, Madurai South Taluk, Madurai. ...... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the fourth respondent in his proceedings inNa.Ka.A2/172/2006 dated 22.09.2010 and quash the same and direct the respondents to pay the compensation for the acquisition of road portion of 78 sq.m. For Petitioner:: Mr. N. Vallinayagam For Respondents:: Mr. K. K. Senthilvelan for R-2 Assistant Solicitor General Mr. B. Pugalendhi for R-1, R-3, R-4 & R-5 Special Government Pleader
O R D E R The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition, challenging an order passed by the fourth respondent, refusing to determine any compensation in respect of a portion of the land acquiredviz., 78 Sq.M., on the ground that it was classified as a road poramboke. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
Heard Mr. N. Vallinayagam, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. K. K. Senthilvelan, learned Assistant Solicitor Generalfor the second respondent and Mr. B. Pugalendhi, learned SpecialGovernment Pleader for other respondents. 3. The land of an extent of 252 Sq.M., in Block No.10 inT.S.No.1/11B belonging to the petitioner was acquired under the NationalHighways Act 1956 for widening of the national highways. The compensation was determined at Rs.2,59,589/- and it was paid to the owner. 4. Thereafter, the land owner made a representation, contending that the land purchased by her was actually 330 Sq.M and that compensation was determined and paid only for an extent of 258 Sq.M,leaving the balance extent of 78 Sq.M. But, the said claim was rejected by the fourth respondent on the ground that the remaining extent of 78Sq. M., was classified as road poramboke and that at any rate, the petitioner should have preferred an Appeal to the District Collectorunder Section 3(G)(5) of the National Highways Act 1956.
Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner is before this Court. 5. The respondents have gone by the Sale Deeds, by which the petitioner purchased the property in question. Under the Sale Deeds, the petitioner had agreed to leave a total extent of 840 Sq. ft., (420 Sq.ft., each) as a common pathway. Therefore, the respondents have treated the said portion, working out to 78 Sq. M., as a public pathway in respect of which, the petitioner is not entitled to any compensation. This cannot certainly be found fault with, since the conclusion of the fourth respondent is based upon the very title deeds relied upon by the petitioner. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the direction issued by the fourth respondent to raise an arbitration dispute under Section 3(G)(5) of National Highways Act is of no use since the arbitration could only be for enhancement of compensation. 7. The said contention cannot be accepted.
Operative part
If compensation is denied in respect of a portion of the land, the same would also fall within the domain of the District Collector to arbitrate and adjudicate. 8. Therefore, leaving it open to the petitioner to work out her remedies under the Act itself before the District Collector, this writ petition is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Sd/-Assistant Registrar (C.O)/True Copy/Sub Assistant Registrar (C.S)To: 1. The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
Project Director, National High Way No.7, Door No.83/1, State Bank 1st Colony Extension, Bye-Pass Road, Madurai - 625 016. 3. The Special District Revenue Officer, Land Acquisition (National High Way No.7 & 45 B), Virudhunagar. 4. The Special District Revenue Officer, Land Acquisition (National High Way Nos.44 & 38), Virudhunagar. 5. The Special Thasildar (Land Acquisition), National Highways Planning, Madurai South Taluk, Madurai. + 1 cc to Mr.Vallinayagam, Advocate, SR No.36673 W.P.(MD)No.7978 of 201120.10.2011Dpn/-RJ/3.11.113p/7c
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Therefore, leaving it open to the petitioner to work out herremedies under the Act itself before the District Collector, this writpetition is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; NationalHighways Act, 1956.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.