Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

D.Lakshmi vs The Secretary To Government Of Tamil ... on 9 June, 2022

Author: M.Dhandapani

Bench: M.Dhandapani

                                                                               W.P.No.6213 of 2019

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                              DATED : 09.06.2022

                                                    CORAM

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

                                             W.P.No.6213 of 2019
                                                     and
                                         W.M.P.Nos.7060 & 14275 of 2019

                  D.Lakshmi                                               ... Petitioner

                                                         Vs.

                  1.The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu,
                    Highways and Minor Ports Department,
                    Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 056.

                  2.The Chief Engineer (H),
                    Metro/CMDP, State Highways,
                    HRS Campus, Guindy,
                    Chennai - 600 025.

                  3.The Special Deputy collector (LA),
                    State Highways, TNUDP-III,
                    Alandur Municipality Buildings,
                    Alandur, Chennai - 600 016.

                  4.The Divisional Engineer,
                    State Highways, CMDP, Division -5,
                    124, Thiagaraya Road,
                    Teynampet, Chennai - 600 018.                         ... Respondents




                 1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                    W.P.No.6213 of 2019


                  PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Section 226 of Constitution of India,
                  pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for records in
                  Letter No.5/2017/LC 4 Korattur/JDO, dated 04.02.2019, on the file of 4th
                  respondent and quash the same as arbitrary, illegal, perverse and
                  unconstitutional and consequently forbear the Respondents from taking
                  physical possession of petitioner's property in T.S.No.1 (Old Survey
                  No.297/1), Korattur, excepting 96.6 sq.ms.

                                  For Petitioner          :   Mr.P.B.Ramanujam

                                  For Respondents         : Mr.P.Sathish
                                                            Additional Government Pleader


                                                      ORDER

This petition has been filed challenging the impugned order passed by the 4th respondent dated 04.02.2019 in Letter No.5/2017/LC 4 Korattur/JDO and consequently, to forbear the Respondents from taking physical possession of petitioner's property in T.S.No.1 (Old Survey No.297/1), Korattur, excepting 96.6 sq. meters.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the owner of the property measuring an extent of 330 sq. meters in T.S.No.1 in Korattur. Her land was acquired by the Government of Tamil Nadu to an extent of 96.6 sq. meter for the purpose of construction of L.C. Road under bridge in lieu of existing level crossing No.4 near Korattur Railway station and the same has 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.6213 of 2019 been notified under Section 15(1) of Tamil Nadu Highways Act 2001 and published in the Government Gazette on 02.02.2011. The grievance of the petitioner is that the officials are attempted to mark the line for the purpose of physical acquisition beyond 96.6 sq. meters and tried to complete the project by encroaching the petitioner's land. In this regard, the petitioner has made several requests orally to the officials to produce the land plan schedule pertaining to T.S.No.1 to resolve the dispute and to make it clear that the extent demarcated at present is wrong and unfair and more than the prescribed limit. As there was no action, the petitioner was constrained to make a representation dated 28.01.2019 to the respondents 1 to 4 stating her objections and the same was rejected by the fourth respondent vide his Letter No.5/2017/LC 4 Korattur/JDO dated 04.02.2019. Hence, the petitioner has filed this petition praying to quash the said order.

3. Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that already notification under Section 15(1) of Tamil Nadu Highway Act was published in the Government Gazette on 02.02.2011. As the above said lands have been notified in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, the land is vest with the Highways Department free from all 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.6213 of 2019 encumbrances. However, the petitioner is repeatedly interfering with the Highways project of constructing Road under Bridge, thereby the present impugned order was passed. However, the impugned order is a consequential order passed by the fourth respondent. The petitioner till now has not challenged the notification under Section 15(1) of the Act. Without challenging the 15(1) Notification, challenging the consequential order is not sustainable one. Further, he submitted that after acquisition, the entire compensation amount was also paid to the petitioner. Even then, the petitioner is disturbing the progress of the work. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of this writ petition.

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court.

5. It is not in dispute that lands have been acquired by following the due process of law. The present order is an off-shoot of the acquisition proceedings on the basis of the representation filed by the petitioner. It is also the stand of the respondents that the notification under Section 15(1) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act has been published in the Government Gazette on 02.02.2011, which has not been challenged by the petitioner. That being the 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.6213 of 2019 case, without challenging the notification under Section 15(1), it is not open to the petitioner to challenge the present impugned order. Further, the petitioner has also not challenged the power of the Government to acquire his land. If at all the petitioner is aggrieved, the petitioner has to invoke the provisions of Section 15(3) of the State Highways Act to seek the indulgence of the Government. It is the further stand of the respondents that the entire compensation amount has also been paid to the petitioner. That being the specific case of the respondents, without challenging the notification under Section 15(1), it is not open to the petitioner to question the present impugned order. Therefore, the prayer sought for in the present petition cannot be acceded to.

6. For the reasons aforesaid, this Writ Petition is dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to work out his remedy in the manner known to law. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.

09.06.2022 Index: Yes/No rsi M.DHANDAPANI, J.

rsi 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.6213 of 2019 To

1.The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Highways and Minor Ports Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 056.

2.The Chief Engineer (H), Metro/CMDP, State Highways, HRS Campus, Guindy, Chennai - 600 025.

3.The Special Deputy collector (LA), State Highways, TNUDP-III, Alandur Municipality Buildings, Alandur, Chennai - 600 016.

4.The Divisional Engineer, State Highways, CMDP, Division -5, 124, Thiagaraya Road, Teynampet, Chennai - 600 018.

W.P.No.6213 of 2019

and W.M.P.No.25315 of 2016 09.06.2022 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis