1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 29.09.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR W.P.(MD)No.11314 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 Kumaran Sethupathy ... Petitioner Vs. 1. The District Collector, Ramanathapuram District. 2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ramanathapuram. ... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the respondent herein to refer the claim of the petitioner pertaining to the apportionment of the compensation, payable for the acquisition proceedings for the property of my principal under survey number 969/1 to an extent of 106.80.0 Hector, 969/2 to an extent of 5.18.0 Hector, 969/3 to an extent of 11.10.5 Hector, 969/4 to an extent of 5.95.0 hector,mandabam Village, Muyal Island, Ramanathapuram District to competent civil Court as per Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. For Petitioner ... Mr.K.R.Laxman For Respondents ... Mr.TR.Janarthanam Additional Government Pleader ORDER This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to issue a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent herein to refer the claim of the petitioner pertaining to the apportionment of the compensation, payable for the acquisition proceedings for the property of my principal under survey number 969/1 to an extent of 106.80.0 Hector, 969/2 to an extent of 5.18.0 Hector, 969/3 to an extent of 11.10.5 Hector, 969/4 to an extent of 5.95.0 hector,mandabam Village, Muyal Island, Ramanathapuram District to competent civil Court as per Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. 2. Heard Mr.K.R.Laxman, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.TR.Janarthanam, learned Additional Government Pleader, who takes notice for the respondents. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 3. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 4. The petitioner states that he is entitled to grant compensation in respect of the lands acquired by the second respondent. He has made a representation in August 2008 and the Revenue Divisional Officer issued notice on 10.08.2011 calling upon the petitioner to appear for enquiry on 22.08.2011. The petitioner states that he appeared. According to the petitioner, the Revenue Divisional Officer has called for certain documents. The petitioner is aggrieved by stating that the authority did not consider the legal issue raised by the petitioner. From the typed set of papers, it is evident that the petitioner has not given a detailed reply to the authority expressing all the legal issues that he has raised before this Court. If such reply is given, the authority is bound to consider the same. 5. In such view of the matter, the petitioner is given liberty to make a proper representation including the legal plea now taken before the Court and the same shall be considered by the authority on the merits of such representation as expeditiously as possible. It is made clear that this Court does not express any opinion on the merits of the petitioner's case and the authority shall consider the same as per law. 6. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. Consequently the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No Costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (T&P) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. The District Collector, Ramanathapuram District. 2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ramanathapuram. +1 CC to Mr.K.R.Laxman, Advocate (SR.No.34582) +1 CC to Mr.T.R.Janarthanan, AGP (SR.No.34349) W.P.(MD)No.11314 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 29.09.2011 ssl NSV/14.10.11/2P/5C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/