Amirthakani Vs. The District Collector, Madurai and Others

Amirthakani vs The District Collector, Madurai and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Madurai Decided Apr 26, 2016

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1191102

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1191102
Court: Chennai Madurai High Court
Judge: B. Rajendran
Decided On: Apr 26, 2016
Case Number: W.P(MD)No. 17243 of 2015 & M.P(MD)Nos. 1 to 3 of 2015
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Amirthakani

Respondent

The District Collector, Madurai and Others

Excerpt

.....proceedings in na.ka.no.14752/2007/c dated 03.08.2015 and quash the same as illegal and consequently forbearing the respondents in any manner interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner's plot no.11 comprised in old survey no.994/1a, ward no.5, block no.33, t.s.no.116, arappalayam main road, madurai-625 016 and to pas such further orders as this court may deem fit and proper.) 1. the petitioner has filed this writ petition for a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the third respondent's impugned proceedings in na.ka.no.14752/2007/c dated 03.08.2015 and quash the same as illegal and consequently, forbear the respondents in any manner interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner's plot no.11 comprised in old survey no.994/1a, ward no.5, block no.33, t.s.no.116, arappalayam main road, madurai-625 016. 2. the learned government advocate appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner is the wife of the allottee of a government servant. the grant of the land was given in the name of the wife. the petitioner's husband is a government servant. therefore, the authority issued a notice to fix the value of the land. they have challenged the same by way of another writ petition which is pending. 3. the present case is concerned, he has not utilised the property for putting up the construction. whereas he is utilizing the property as a workshop and utilised for granite unit and is purely put to commercial use which cannot be utilized. whether he can be allowed to claim the benefit of one cent of land, especially, when the husband is a government servant, is rightly rejected. hence, i do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. 4. therefore, this writ petition is dismissed. no costs. consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are dismissed.

Full Judgment

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the third respondent's impugned proceedings in Na.Ka.No.14752/2007/C dated 03.08.2015 and quash the same as illegal and consequently forbearing the respondents in any manner interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner's plot No.11 comprised in Old Survey No.994/1A, Ward No.5, Block No.33, T.S.No.116, Arappalayam Main Road, Madurai-625 016 and to pas such further orders as this Court may deem fit and proper.)

1. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the third respondent's impugned proceedings in Na.Ka.No.14752/2007/C dated 03.08.2015 and quash the same as illegal and consequently, forbear the respondents in any manner interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner's plot No.11 comprised in Old Survey No.994/1A, Ward No.5, Block No.33, T.S.No.116, Arappalayam Main Road, Madurai-625 016.

2. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner is the wife of the allottee of a Government servant. The grant of the land was given in the name of the wife. The petitioner's husband is a Government servant. Therefore, the authority issued a notice to fix the value of the land. They have challenged the same by way of another writ petition which is pending.

3. The present case is concerned, he has not utilised the property for putting up the construction. Whereas he is utilizing the property as a workshop and utilised for granite unit and is purely put to commercial use which cannot be utilized. Whether he can be allowed to claim the benefit of one cent of land, especially, when the husband is a Government servant, is rightly rejected. Hence, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order.

4. Therefore, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petitions are dismissed.

Same Court & Year Chennai Madurai · 2016 Same Parties Amirthakani vs The District Collector, Madurai and Others Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge B. Rajendran