M.PUGALVANAN Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr.P.Venkataraman, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.V.M.Velumani, learned Spl.G.P. for the respondents.

(2.) THE petitioner has prayed for a direction to the first respondent to enhance the compensation as per the revised estimate and disburse the same within a reasonable time.

(3.) THE petitioner further states that the second respondent as Land Acquisition Officer, issued notice under Section 3-C of the National Highways Act and invited objections. The petitioner appeared before the second respondent and submitted his objection regarding the proposed acquisition of his land in S.No.5/10A2. However, the respondents over-ruled the objections and declared that the property is needed for public purpose and acquired it under compulsory in nature. The petitioner thereafter submitted a request to the second respondent to determine the value by considering the building and other valuables situated in the land and further requested to fix the value as per the market value after computing the solatium as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. Inspite of the request made by the petitioner, the second respondent fixed the compensation without applying the yardstick formulated in the Land Acquisition Act and passed an award.