Madras High Court
A.Palanichamy vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 25 June, 2021
W.P.(MD).No.10595 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 25.06.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
W.P.(MD).No.10595 of 2021
and
W.M.P.(MD)No.8253 of 2021
A.Palanichamy ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. By its Revenue Secretary,
Secretariat,
Chennai – 9.
2.The Secretary,
Small Industries (SIC) Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai – 9.
3.The Secretary,
Labour and Industrial Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai – 9.
4.The Chairman,
Small Industrial Development Corporation (SIDCO),
Guindy, Chennai.
5.The Regional Deputy Director,
Town and Country Planning,
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.10595 of 2021
Regional Office,
Sivagangai.
6.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
(Land Acquisition Officer),
Revenue Divisional Office,
Sivagangai,
Sivagangai District.
7.S.Masilamani
8.M/s.V.M.Hallow Blocks,
Sivagangai Town,
Sivagangai.
9.M/s.Rajeswari Engineering Industry,
Sivagangai Town,
Sivagangai.
10.Sivaganga District Small Scale Industries,
Association Rep. By its President,
K.R.Rajamanickam,
Sivagangai Town,
Sivagangai. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 4 to
allot the property in S.No.276/2 in an extent of 11 acre 7 cents, in
Soorakulam Village, Sivagangai Taluk, Sivagangai District to the
petitioner on payment of development charge under the land loser
category in the light of the Apex Court judgment reported in 2011 (2)
SCC page 29- BRIJ MOHAN AND OTHERS VS. HARYANA URBAN
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER.
2/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.10595 of 2021
For Petitioner : Mr.J.John
For Respondents : Mr.M.Lingadurai,
Government Advocate for R1 to R6
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed for the issue of a Writ of
Mandamus, directing the respondents to allot the subject matter property
in favour of the petitioner on payment of development charges under the
landloser category by considering the representation made by the
petitioner on 29.05.2021.
2. Heard Mr.J.John, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
and Mr.M.Lingadurai, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the
respondents 1 to 6.
3. In the considered view of this Court, the petitioner absolutely
does not have any legal right to maintain this Writ Petition. The
petitioner is virtually attempting to reopen an issue, which was already
over, when the Writ Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the
Division Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD)No.1175 of 2016, by order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.10595 of 2021
dated 30.08.2016. The petitioner is now trying to resurrect a lost right
only on the ground that the property is now being allotted for pittance to
the third parties. According to the petitioner, the statement made by the
respondents before this Court at the time when the Writ Petition and the
Writ Appeal were pending was completely false. If the statement made
by the respondents, during the pendency of the Writ Petition and Writ
Appeal was false, the petitioner ought to have raised it during the
relevant point of time and he cannot come after five years before this
Court and raise a plea that the land is being knocked off, by making false
statements before this Court.
4. The petitioner is heavily relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Brij Mohan and others Vs. Haryana Urban
Development Authority and another reported in (2011) 2 SCC 29. A
careful reading of the judgment shows that the Hon'ble Supreme Court
was dealing with a scheme which provided for allotment at a normal
allotment rate. Even under that scheme, the landloser allottees will have
to pay the normal allotment rates for the plots to be allotted to them
under the scheme. In the present case, there is no such scheme and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.10595 of 2021
therefore, the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the
petitioner will not have any application to the facts of the present case.
In the considered view of this Court, there is absolutely no merit in this
Writ Petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.
25.06.2021
Index :Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
vsm
Note :
In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for
official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order
that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the advocate / litigant concerned.
To
1.The Revenue Secretary,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Secretariat,
Chennai – 9.
2.The Secretary,
Small Industries (SIC) Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai – 9.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.10595 of 2021
N.ANAND VENKATESH.J.,
vsm
3.The Secretary,
Labour and Industrial Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai – 9.
4.The Chairman,
Small Industrial Development Corporation (SIDCO),
Guindy,
Chennai.
5.The Regional Deputy Director,
Town and Country Planning,
Regional Office,
Sivagangai.
6.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
(Land Acquisition Officer),
Revenue Divisional Office,
Sivagangai,
Sivagangai District. W.P.(MD).No.10595 of 2021
and W.M.P.(MD)No.8253 of 2021
25.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
