Madras High Court
K.Bhuvaneswari vs Meenakshi on 23 March, 2022
C.M.P.Nos.2802 and 2807 of 2022
and W.A.No. SR 114577 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 23.03.2022
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
C.M.P.Nos.2802 and 2807 of 2022
and W.A.No. SR 114577 of 2021
K.Bhuvaneswari,
rep. by her General Power of Attorney
K.Gajalakshmi .. Applicant/
Appellant
(K.Gajalakshmi appointed as
General Power of Attorney of K.Bhuvaneswari
as per this order)
Vs
1.Meenakshi
2.Narmatha
3.Senthil Kumar
4.The District Collector,
Kancheepuram,
Kancheepuram District.
____________
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.P.Nos.2802 and 2807 of 2022
and W.A.No. SR 114577 of 2021
Now
The District Collector,
Chengalpattu,
Chengalpattu District-603 001. .. Respondents/
Respondents
Prayer:
C.M.P.No.2807 of 2022 has been filed to appoint K.Gajalakshmi
as the General Power of Attorney of the applicant K.Buvaneshwari to
represent the case.
C.M.P.No.2802 of 2022 has been filed to grant leave to the
applicant to file writ appeal as third party against the order dated
20.08.2019 passed in W.P.No.834 of 2019.
W.A.No. SR 114578 of 2021 has been filed under Clause 15 of
the Letters Patent against the order 20.08.2019 passed in W.P.No.834
of 2019.
For the Applicant/ : Mr.K.Gajalakshmi
Appellant Party-in-person
____________
Page 2 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.P.Nos.2802 and 2807 of 2022
and W.A.No. SR 114577 of 2021
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
Heard on the application (C.M.P.No.2807 of 2022) to appoint
Ms.K.Gajalakshmi as the General Power of Attorney of the applicant
K.Buvaneswari to represent the case on behalf of her and also the
application to seek leave to maintain the writ appeal against the
order dated 20.08.2019 in W.P.No.834 of 2019.
2. Considering the fact that the applicant is aged 64 years and
the power of attorney holder to represent the applicant in this case is
her daughter, Ms.K.Gajalakshmi, C.M.P.No.2807 of 2022 is allowed.
3. Insofar as C.M.P.No.2802 of 2022 is concerned, the applicant
seeks leave to file an appeal against the order dated 20.08.2019
passed in W.P.No.834 of 2019. The said writ petition was filed by the
respondents 1 to 3 herein seeking appropriate compensation for the
land acquired under the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 by the
Highways Department.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.P.Nos.2802 and 2807 of 2022
and W.A.No. SR 114577 of 2021
4. The learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition with a
direction to the District Collector, Kancheepuram to decide the cost of
the land and pass final award and upon receipt of the final award, the
writ petitioners/respondents 1 to 3 were permitted to submit a
representation for reference, if necessary.
5. The applicant herein is one who is claiming title over the
same land, which is the subject-matter of acquisition. It appears that
earlier, the applicant has filed Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.18841
of 2019 to challenge the order dated 12.02.2019 passed in W.A.SR
No.108670 of 2018 before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court
did not accept the appeal preferred by the applicant, rather, liberty
was given to her to file a civil suit to establish her title and to
question the partition. The applicant, thereupon, filed a civil suit in
the year 2021. The said suit is still pending and, therefore, at
present, the claim of title has not been decided favourably to the
applicant/writ appellant so as to claim leave to challenge the order
passed by the learned Single Judge. Till the title of the applicant is
established, she cannot have a claim on the land in question so as to
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.P.Nos.2802 and 2807 of 2022
and W.A.No. SR 114577 of 2021
seek leave for challenging the order of the learned Single Judge,
where the direction is only to pass an award, with liberty to the writ
petitioners to make a representation for reference, if necessary.
6. Taking the overall facts into consideration and in the absence
of title in favour of the applicant at present, we do not find any
justification in the application to seek leave for maintaining the
appeal and, accordingly, the same is dismissed. Consequently, the
writ appeal is rejected at the SR stage itself. There is no order as to
costs.
(M.N.B., CJ) (D.B.C., J.)
23.03.2022
Index : Yes/No
bbr
To
The District Collector,
Chengalpattu,
Chengalpattu District-603 001.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.P.Nos.2802 and 2807 of 2022
and W.A.No. SR 114577 of 2021
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
bbr
C.M.P.No.2802 and 2807 of 2022
and W.A.No. SR 114577 of 2021
23.03.2022
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
