Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Raj, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents—the District Collector, Tenkasi District, the Tahsildar, Kadayanallur Taluk, the Block Development Officer (Village Panchayat), Vasudevanallur Panchayat Union, and the President, Ramasamiyapuram Village Panchayat—to restore possession of his landed property comprised in Survey No.18/4A situated at Ramasamiapuram Village, Kadaiyanallur Taluk, Tenkasi District, which he alleged was illegally acquired. In the alternative, he prayed for the property to be acquired for the purpose of road laying by following the due process of law after payment of compensation at the prevailing market price. The basis of the petition was a representation dated 05.04.2022 made to the respondents. The core legal issue was whether the court should issue a mandamus for restoration or direct acquisition with compensation. The government pleader stated before the court that the petition would be considered as a representation and the concerned authorities would examine the ground realities and pass necessary orders in accordance with law; this statement was accepted as an undertaking. The court, without delving into the merits of the alleged illegal acquisition, disposed of the writ petition by directing the respondents to give notice to the present petitioner, the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.28675 of 2023, and any other person claiming a right while conducting a survey. After the survey, the authorities were to afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the parties concerned and then pass a reasoned order. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 226 of Constitution of India, 1950 - Mandamus - Where a petitioner sought restoration of possession of land allegedly illegally acquired and in the alternative due process of acquisition with compensation, the court accepted the government pleader's undertaking that the petition would be treated as a representation and the authorities would examine ground realities and pass necessary orders in accordance with law; the court directed respondents to give notice to the petitioner, the petitioner in another connected writ petition, and any other person claiming right, to conduct a survey, and to afford a personal hearing before passing a reasoned order - Held, the writ petition is disposed of in terms of the undertaking, with no order as to costs (Paras 1-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a writ of mandamus should be issued for restoration of possession of land or direction for due acquisition process with compensation.
Final Decision
Writ petition disposed of with directions to respondents to give notice to petitioner and other interested parties, conduct a survey, afford personal hearing, and pass a reasoned order. No costs.
Law Points
- Writ of Mandamus
- Article 226 of the Constitution of India
- consideration of representation
- natural justice
