Madras High Court
P.Ramamoorthy ` vs The Sole Arbitrator / District ... on 6 August, 2024
Author: R.Subramanian
Bench: R.Subramanian
W.A.(MD) No.1318 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 06.08.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI
W.A.(MD) No.1318 of 2024
and
C.M.P.(MD) Nos.10273 & 10276 of 2024
P.Ramamoorthy ` ... Appellant
-vs-
1.The Sole Arbitrator / District Collector,
National Highways 744-A,
Collectorate, Madurai.
2.The Competent Authority Cum
District Special Revenue Divisional Officer,
(Land Acquisition) National Highways 744-A,
Door.No.5A, Baskar Complex,
Besant Road, Chinnachokkikulam,
Madurai – 2.
Marikanpandian (Died)
3.Ramaraja, S/o.Late. Parimalapandian
4.Lakshmanaraja, S/o.Late. Parimalapandian
5.Inbavalli, D/o.Late. Parimalapandian
____________
Page 1 of 5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) No.1318 of 2024
6.Kalavathy, D/o.Late. Parimalapandian
7.Thilagarani, W/o.Late. Marikan Pandian
8.Vimala, D/o.Late. Marikan Pandian
9.Nirmala, D/o.Late. Marikan Pandian
10.Sakkesh, S/o. Late. Marikan Pandian ... Respondents
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the
order, dated 11.12.2023, passed in W.P.(MD) No.17347 of 2020, on the file of
this Court.
For Appellant : Mr.K.Rajeshwaran
For R1 & R2 : Mr.S.R.A.Ramachandran
Additional Government Pleader
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.]
The challenge in the Writ Petition was to the order dated 23.10.2020, in
and by which, the claim of the appellant / petitioner that he has been
cultivating the land in question as a cultivating tenant was rejected on the
ground that the lease deed that has been produced by him had expired as
early as on 30.04.1963.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2. The learned Single Judge had dismissed the Writ Petition finding that
the petitioner has no proof that he continued to cultivate the land even as on
date of the acquisition and a suit filed by him for permanent injunction is
pending. Admittedly, the petitioner is not a registered tenant under the
provisions of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands Record of Tenancy Rights Act,
1969.
3. The Writ Court is not the forum, where the question as to whether the
petitioner is a tenant or not could be decided. It is now stated by the learned
counsel for the appellant that with regard to payment of enhanced
compensation, there has been a reference made by the Authority under
Section 3H of the National Highways Act, 1956, which provides a machinery
for determination of the person, who is entitled to compensation.
4. In view of pendency of such proceedings, we are unable to fault the
learned Single Judge for having dismissed the Writ Petition. It will be open for
the appellant / petitioner to claim compensation, if he is able to succeed either
in the proceedings initiated under Section 3H of the National Highways Act,
1956 or in the suit pending before the Civil Court.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5. The Writ Appeal fails and the same is liable to be dismissed.
Therefore, it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected
Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
NCC : No [R.S.M., J.] [L.V.G., J.]
Index : No 06.08.2024
Internet : Yes
smn2
To:-
1.The Sole Arbitrator / District Collector,
National Highways 744-A,
Collectorate, Madurai.
2.The Competent Authority Cum
District Special Revenue Divisional Officer,
(Land Acquisition) National Highways 744-A,
Door.No.5A, Baskar Complex,
Besant Road, Chinnachokkikulam,
Madurai – 2.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
and
L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.
smn2
and
C.M.P.(MD) Nos.10273 & 10276 of 2024
06.08.2024
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
