2024 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 76308
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.DHANDAPANI, J
V.Selvaraj – Appellant
Versus
The Special District Revenue Officer (Land Acquisi – Respondent
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 01.10.2024 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. DHANDAPANI W.P.No.7078 of 2021 V.Selvaraj ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The Special District Revenue Officer (Land Acquisition), National High Way No.209, No.567, A.P.J.Abdul Kalam Nagar, Opp to the District Collector Office, Dindigul – 624 001.
2.The Commissioner, The Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, 119, Uthamar Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam High Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034.
3.The Joint Commissioner, Arulmigu Dandayudapani Swamy Thirukoil, Palani – 624 601.
4.The Special Thasildhar (Land Acquisition), N.H.209, Unjavelampatti, Pollachi, Coimbatore District.
5.The Village Officer, Kurumbapalayam Village, Kullakkapalayam, Pollachi, Coimbatore District. ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent vide se.mu.na.ka.no.33529/2020/m1 dated 26.02.2021 and quash the same and direct the 1st respondent to settle the adequate compensation amount of Rs.28,81,800/- for the coconut tress as per the report of the Agriculture Department and for Rs.81,850/- other trees as per the report given by the Horticulture Department and for Rs.7,91,198/- for the buildings and for water pipes as per report given by the Public Works Department.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Nagarajan For Respondents : Mr.U.Baranidharan Additional Government Pleader [R1, R4 & R5]
Mr.K.Karthikeyan Government Advocate (HR & CE) [R2]
Mr.R.Baranidharan [R3]
*****
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent vide se.mu.na.ka.no.33529/2020/m1 dated 26.02.2021 and quash the same and direct the 1st respondent to settle the adequate compensation amount of Rs.28,81,800/- for the coconut tress as per the report of the Agriculture Department and Rs.81,850/- for other trees as per the report given by the Horticulture Department and Rs.7,91,198/- for the buildings and for water pipes as per report given by the Public Works Department.
2. The case of the petitioner is that, one late Angammal, W/o.Chinapa Chetiyar, who was the landlord leased out the agriculture land situated at Kurumbapalayam Village, Pollachi Taluk vide Patta No.19 at S.F.No.296/3, 296/7, 296/19 and 196/13 measuring about 5.79 acre to the father of the petitioner, namely Veerapa Gounder and registered the lease deed on 29.05.1985. He was cultivating several crops and planted coconut trees in the subject agriculture land. As per the lease litigation registered case No.17/1984, he was declared as lawful lease-holder for the above said property by the order of Thasildar, Pollachi vide proceedings dated 09.07.1984. He used to give the lease amount to the land owner Angammal till her death and the said Angammal gifted the subject land to Arulmigu Thandayuthapani Swamy Temple situated at Palani, Dindigul District and registered the gift deed. After death of Angammal, he became the direct lease-holder under the administration of the Arulmigu Thandayuthapani Swamy Temple. Till the demise of the father of the petitioner, he was the lawful lease-holder and he was paying lease amount in his name.
Thereafter, the petitioner became the lawful lease-holder under the administration of the Arulmigu Thandayuthapani Swamy Temple and paying the lease amount without fail and doing the agriculture since then. Whileso, on 18.03.2017, the 1st respondent published the acquisition notice in all the daily newspapers to acquire the land for the purpose of expanding the road for the National Highways 209. The acquisition notice revealed that the 1st respondent were going to acquire a part of the agriculture land situated in S.F.No.296/13 which was under the enjoyment and possession of the petitioner as lease-holder of the 3rd respondent. Thereafter, the respondents 1