Madras High Court
The Commissioner Of Land ... vs M.Leninkumar on 28 July, 2021
W.A.No.555 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 28.07.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH
and
THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
W.A.No.555 of 2021
and C.M.P.No.2212 of 2021
1.The Commissioner of Land Administration(FAC),
Ezhilagam, Chepauk,
Chennai - 600 006.
2.The Special District Revenue Officer,
(Land Acquisition Officer),
Chennai - Kanniyakumari Industrial
Corrirod Project,
Plot No.74,Vijayaraghavan Nagar,
ZahirAmmapalayam,
Salem District - 636 302.
3.The District Collector,
Namakkal District, Namakkal.
4.The Divisional Engineer,
Highways Department,
Vaigai Street, Highways Nagar,
Salem - 636 005. .. Appellants
Vs
1.M.Leninkumar
2.K.Natesan
3.S.Jothi
4.C.Muthusamy
5.P.Annamalai
6.R.Subramaniyam
Page 1 of 5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.555 of 2021
7.R.Sellapan
8.P.Pandian
9.M.Karunanithi .. Respondents
Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order
dated 28.10.2020 made in W.P.No.13976 of 2020.
For Appellants : Mr.D.Ravichander
Government Counsel
For Respondents : Mr.N.Manokaran
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.)
This appeal has been preferred against the order of the learned
Single Judge, who allowed the writ petition on two counts, namely, the
second appellant has exceeded his jurisdiction by rejecting the
objection made by the respondents and the first appellant has
abdicated his duty. Challenging the aforesaid order, the present appeal
has been filed.
2. Learned Government Counsel appearing for the appellants
placing reliance upon the judgment of the learned Single Judge in
Titanium Equipment and Anode Manufacturing Company
Limited Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others (2018 4 CTC 814)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.555 of 2021
submitted that the power of eminent domain is available and the
manner in which the recommendation is made by the second appellant
will have no impact on the acquisition proceedings as it is merely
recommendatory. The first appellant has considered the entire
materials and rejected it.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/writ
petitioners submitted that the first appellant is expected to apply his
mind over the materials placed before him which is inclusive of the
views of the requisitioning authority, if any, views of the
recommendation of the second appellant and the objection of the
respondents. Mere mechanical acceptance is not required especially
when the Act is expropriatory in nature. It is further submitted that
pursuant to the order of the learned Single Judge, re-enquiry was
initiated and the objections of the respondents have already been
received.
4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties,
we do not find any error warranting interference with the order of the
learned Single Judge. Apart from the subsequent development, there
is nothing wrong in the reasoning adopted by the learned Single
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.555 of 2021
Judge. As observed by us, the Act being expropriatory in nature, there
has to be a strict compliance. The learned Single Judge taking note of
the relevant materials came to the conclusion that there is non-
application of mind on the part of the first appellant and the second
appellant has rejected it, when his role is different, which weighed in
the mind of the first appellant.
5. We find no reason to interfere with the order of the learned
Single Judge, having found that the order of the learned Single Judge
relied upon by the learned Government Counsel does not have any
application to the case on hand.
6. The writ appeal accordingly stands dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(M.M.S., J.) (R.N.M., J.)
28.07.2021
Index:Yes/No
mmi/ssm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.555 of 2021
M.M.SUNDRESH, J.
and
R.N.MANJULA,J.
mmi
W.A.No.555 of 2021
28.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
