Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2471 (MAD)

Dhanalakshmi v. District Collector, Villupuram

2013-07-16

D.HARIPARANTHAMAN

body2013
JUDGMENT :- 1. By consent, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for final hearing today. 2. The lands of the petitioners in Mannur Village, Tindivanam Taluk were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The acquisition proceedings were questioned before this Court by filing a Writ Petition in W.P.No.17064 of 1994. The same was dismissed by this Court by an order dated 5.4.2002. A Writ Appeal was preferred against the aforesaid order. The Division Bench ultimately dismissed the W.A.No.1938 of 2002 by judgment dated 4.9.2008. A Special Leave Application in SLP.(C) No.19375 of 2009 was also preferred before the Apex Court. However, the same was dismissed for default. It is stated that now they have preferred a Revision Petition before the Hon'ble Apex Court. 3. Now, the petitioners have made a representation dated 14.5.2013 to the respondents to surrender back the lands to them as the purpose of acquisition went in vain. 4. The petitioners have filed this Writ Petition seeking a direction to dispose of their representation dated 14.5.2013. 5. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners. 6. The aforesaid facts make it clear that all the efforts of the petitioners questioning the land acquisition proceedings ended in failure. Hence, they cannot now simply make a representation to reconvey the lands and thereafter, file a writ petition to dispose of their representation to reconvey the lands. The representation does not contain any reason for surrender of the lands back to the petitioners except stating that the petitioners are poor and they could not be disturbed from the lands. 7. At this juncture, it is relevant to rely on a decision of this Court in M.Solaikannan vs. The Cabinet Secretary to the Union Cabinet, Union Secretariat, New Delhi-1 and others reported in 2013(1) CWC 569 in which in para 22, the Madurai Bench of this Court has held as follows: "22. In the considered opinion of this Court, unless the petitioner establishes that he is having a specific legal right an the respondents are also under the statutory obligation to carry out their duties and in the event of their failure to do so, Mandamus may be issued to compel to do something." 8. In these circumstances, I do not find any merit in the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs.