K S SAHADEVARAJA Vs. THE COMMISSIONER RAJAPALAYAM MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this writ petition, seeking for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents from entering upon the land bearing Town Survey No.52 (old) new 110, Malayadipatti in Block No.7 and Ward-H of Rajapalayam Municipality and pass such further or other orders as this Court may deem fit and proper and render justice.

(2.) THE facts leading to the filing of this writ petition are as follows:

(3.) (a).The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though he prayed for Mandamus to forbear the respondents from entering upon the land in issue, the consistent plea of the petitioner is to acquire the land as per law and the petitioner is always willing for direct negotiation also and therefore, he prays for suitable direction to the respondent Municipality to take acquisition proceeding and to compensate the interested persons under the land acquisition Act. (b)The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a series of orders passed in W.P.(MD) N0.5614 of 2006, by this Court in similar circumstances. He has prayed for similar order in this case. (c)The learned counsel has also taken me through the entire judgment of this Court in W.P.(MD) No.14926 of 1988 relied on by the Municipality and submits that the aforesaid judgment is in favour of the petitioner. According to him, this Court recorded the submission of the learned counsel for the Municipality that the Municipality has right to acquire the land in issue for the purpose of the scheme road. Since the Municipality has not taken steps to acquire the land, the petitioner was forced to come before this Court. (d)He has further contended that the issue as to the ownership was also taken note of by the judgment referred to above and he has explained as to how the petitioner and his brothers are the owners of the property in issue. (e)He has submitted that if the acquisition is made under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the interested persons could make their objections, if any, and the acquisition and compensation could be decided accordingly. According to him, the petitioner and the family members are only interested in compensation and they are not opposed to acquisition.