R.Sujatha Babu Vs. District Collector of Vellore District - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
in the high court of judicature at madras dated:06. 02.2013 coram the hon'ble mr.justice m.jaichandren w.p.no.26454 of 2012 and m.p.nos.1 and 2 of 2012 r.sujatha babu .. petitioner vs. 1.district collector vellore district, vellore 2.sub collector tirupattur, vellore district 3.divisional engineer national highways (c&m) vaniyambadi, vellore district 4.deputy secretary to government highways and minor ports (hq2) department, secretariat chennai-60”5. principal secretary and commissioner of land administration, chennai-600 005 .. respondents this writ petition is filed under article 226 of the constitution of india praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the proceedings of 1st respondent to the 2nd respondent in lr.not d1/8480/2009 dated 19.06.2012 and quash the same and direct the respondents to pay the enhanced compensation to the petitioner as per the judgment made in a.s.no.80/2007. for petitioner : mr.k.sukumaran for respondents : ms.v.m.velumani, spl.g.p. o r d e r heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.2. at this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has submitted that the present writ petition, filed by the petitioner, is not maintainable, in view of the fact that it has been filed challenging the internal communication sent by the first respondent to the second respondent, by way of the impugned letter not d1/8480/2009, dated 19.06.2012.3. the petitioner has further prayed that this court may be pleased to direct the respondents to pay the enhanced compensation to the petitioner, as per the common judgment of this court, dated 12.02.2010, made in a.s.no.80 of 2007.4. the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that such a relief cannot be prayed for, by the petitioner, by way of a writ petition, under article 226 of the constitution of india.5. in view of the said submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, this court is of the considered view that it would not be open to the petitioner to challenge the communication of the first respondent sent to the second respondent, by way of the impugned letter, dated 19.06.2012, as such communications are not subject to challenge.6. further, it is not appropriate for this court to pass an order, in the present writ petition, to implement the judgment of this court, made in a.s.no.80 of 2007, by invoking the writ jurisdiction, under article 226 of the constitution of india. in such view of the matter, the present writ petition stands dismissed. however, it is made clear that it would be open to the petitioner to pursue the remedy available to her, before the appropriate forum, based on the judgment of this court, made in a.s.no.80 of 2007, in the manner known to law. it is also made clear that it would be open to the petitioner to seek an appropriate relief, if the respondents pass any adverse order against the petitioner, with regard to her claim for payment of enhanced compensation. no costs. consequently, connected mps are closed. nvsri to 1.district collector vellore district, vellore 2.sub collector tirupattur, vellore district 3.divisional engineer national highways (c&m) vaniyambadi, vellore district 4.deputy secretary to government highways and minor ports (hq2) department, secretariat chennai-60”5. principal secretary and commissioner of land administration, chenna”00.

Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:

06. 02.2013 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN W.P.No.26454 of 2012 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2012 R.Sujatha Babu .. Petitioner Vs. 1.District Collector Vellore District, Vellore 2.Sub Collector Tirupattur, Vellore District 3.Divisional Engineer National Highways (C&M) Vaniyambadi, Vellore District 4.Deputy Secretary to Government Highways and Minor Ports (HQ2) Department, Secretariat Chennai-60”

5. Principal Secretary and Commissioner of Land Administration, Chennai-600 005 .. Respondents This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the proceedings of 1st respondent to the 2nd respondent in Lr.not D1/8480/2009 dated 19.06.2012 and quash the same and direct the respondents to pay the enhanced compensation to the petitioner as per the judgment made in A.S.No.80/2007. For petitioner : Mr.K.Sukumaran For Respondents : Ms.V.M.Velumani, Spl.G.p. O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has submitted that the present writ petition, filed by the petitioner, is not maintainable, in view of the fact that it has been filed challenging the internal communication sent by the first respondent to the second respondent, by way of the impugned letter not D1/8480/2009, dated 19.06.2012.

3. The petitioner has further prayed that this Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to pay the enhanced compensation to the petitioner, as per the common judgment of this Court, dated 12.02.2010, made in A.S.No.80 of 2007.

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that such a relief cannot be prayed for, by the petitioner, by way of a writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

5. In view of the said submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, this Court is of the considered view that it would not be open to the petitioner to challenge the communication of the first respondent sent to the second respondent, by way of the impugned letter, dated 19.06.2012, as such communications are not subject to challenge.

6. Further, it is not appropriate for this Court to pass an order, in the present writ petition, to implement the judgment of this Court, made in A.S.No.80 of 2007, by invoking the writ jurisdiction, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In such view of the matter, the present writ petition stands dismissed. However, it is made clear that it would be open to the petitioner to pursue the remedy available to her, before the appropriate forum, based on the judgment of this Court, made in A.S.No.80 of 2007, in the manner known to law. It is also made clear that it would be open to the petitioner to seek an appropriate relief, if the respondents pass any adverse order against the petitioner, with regard to her claim for payment of enhanced compensation. No costs. Consequently, connected MPs are closed. nvsri To 1.District Collector Vellore District, Vellore 2.Sub Collector Tirupattur, Vellore District 3.Divisional Engineer National Highways (C&M) Vaniyambadi, Vellore District 4.Deputy Secretary to Government Highways and Minor Ports (HQ2) Department, Secretariat Chennai-60”

5. Principal Secretary and Commissioner of Land Administration, Chenna”

00.