Madras High Court
The District Collector vs V.Subramaniyan on 17 July, 2023
WA No.1728 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 17.07.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA , CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU
WA No.1728 of 2023
1.The District Collector,
Tiruvannamalai District
2.The District Revenue Officer cum Sub Collector,
Cheyyar Taluk,
Cheyyar, Tiruvannamalai District.
3.The Tahsildar,
Cheyyar Taluk,
Cheyyar, Tiruvannamalai District. : Appellants
versus
1.V.Subramaniyan
2.The Panchayat President,
Azhividathangi Village,
Cheyyar Taluk,
Tiruvannamalai District. : Respondents
Prayer: Writ appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set
aside the order dated 19.09.2022 in WP No.27388 of 2016.
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No.1728 of 2023
For the Appellant : Mr.P.Kumaresan,
Additional Advocate-General,
assisted by Mr.Karthik Jagannath,
Government Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr.D.Saikumaran
JUDGMENT
(Made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
Heard Mr.P.Kumaresan, learned Additional Advocate-General, for
the appellants and Mr.D.Saikumaran, learned counsel for the first
respondent.
2. Learned Additional Advocate-General submits that in fact, the
learned Single Judge could not have allowed the Writ Petition. Though
assignment was issued in favour of the first respondent in the year
1975, however, the first respondent did not cultivate the land. As per
the terms of assignment, he was bound to cultivate the land. He is
from another village and does not reside in the same village where the
land was assigned. The District Collector, considering this fact had
negatived the request of the first respondent for grant of
compensation. The road was laid twenty years back.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No.1728 of 2023
3. Learned counsel for the first respondent submits that in a
contempt petition filed by the first respondent, the present appellants
have undertaken to pay the amount.
4. We have considered the submissions. It is not disputed that
the land was assigned to the first respondent in the year 1975. It is
also not disputed that after the assignment of the land in favour of the
first respondent, road has been laid by the appellants. It is also not
disputed that no compensation has been paid to the first respondent
for the road laid by the appellants. The only contention of the
appellants appears to be that the assignment of land in favour of the
first respondent was erroneous and that the first respondent has
violated the terms of the assignment. It is not disputed that the said
assignment of land in favour of the first respondent has not been
revoked till date and the assignment of land stands in the name of the
first respondent. Once the land has been assigned to the first
respondent, the first respondent cannot be deprived of the land except
in accordance with the procedure established by law. The road has
been laid on and from the land assigned to the first respondent. The
first respondent certainly was entitled for the compensation amount.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No.1728 of 2023
Learned Single Judge of this court while passing the impugned order
did not commit any error and has rightly directed the payment of fair
compensation.
5. It is submitted that the amount of Rs.1,79,000/- (Rupees One
Lakh and Seventy Nine Thousand only) has been valued by the present
appellants for payment to the first respondent. The said amount shall
be paid to the first respondent within four weeks from today.
6. With these observations and direction, the appeal stands
disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, CMP
No.15269 of 2023 is closed.
(S.V.G., CJ.) (P.D.A., J.)
17.07.2023
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
tar
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No.1728 of 2023
To
The Panchayat President,
Azhividathangi Village,
Cheyyar Taluk,
Tiruvannamalai District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No.1728 of 2023
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
P.D.AUDIKESAVALU, J.
(tar)
WA No.1728 of 2023
17.07.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
