High Court imposes cost on Madurai Corporation

Petitioner said in 2010, the civic body took possession of his land in Madurai North taluk to lay roads, but it was illegally taken over by authorities

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court took note of the fact that the petitioner had submitted his representation to authorities in 2010 and his representation was not yet considered.

Madurai Corporation was a statutory body and had certain duties towards the citizens of the country, observed the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court while imposing a cost of ₹10,000 on it for having failed to consider a representation made by a petitioner.

The court was hearing the petition filed in 2014 by P. Ramachandran of Madurai, who sought a direction to authorities to either pay compensation to him or provide an alternative land in respect of the acquired land. The petitioner said in 2010, the Corporation took possession of the land in Madurai North taluk to lay roads. Though he made a representation to the authorities, it was not considered. He claimed that the land was illegally taken over by the authorities.

Justice B. Pugalendhi took a serious view of the fact that though notice had been served on the authorities, no counter affidavit was filed in the past eight years. The authorities said that no acquisition proceedings were conducted.

The petitioner had submitted his representation to the authorities in 2010 and his representation was not yet considered.

Corporation’s inaction

The court observed that the petition was pending for the past eight years and the Corporation did not choose to give even written instructions as to whether the land was a patta land or not; whether the representation of the petitioner was considered or not; whether the procedures under the Land Acquisition Act had been complied with before acquiring the land or not; and whether any notice had been issued to the petitioner before evicting him.

The court observed that in the absence of the instructions, the court was not in a position to dispose of the petition. The court imposed a cost and sought a detailed counter affidavit. The hearing in the case was adjourned till April 25.