1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 03.08.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH W.A.(MD).Nos.486 and 664 of 2011 and M.P.Nos.2 and 3 and 3 of 2011 Kaja Kamaludeen : Appellant in W.A.(MD).No.486 of 2011/3rd Party Sulaika Beevi : Appellant in W.A.(MD).No.664 of 2011/3rd Party Vs. 1.St.Mary Health Educational and Research Foundation, Reg.No.U85100TN2010NPL074555, Rep by its Managing Trustee, Antony Joe Kingsley Fernandez, 5th Floor, Kalluveettil Shyras Centre, 47, Court Road, Nagercoil. ..1st Respondent/Writ Petitioner 2.The Secretary to Government, Ministry of Health and Family (MCA2) Department, Secretariat, Chennai. 3.The Secretary to Government (Land Administration), Secretariat, Chennai. 4.The District Collector, Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil. :Respondents 2 to 4/Respondents 1 to 3 PRAYER: Writ Appeals are filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 25.06.2010 made in W.P.(MD).No.7267 of 2010 on the file of this Court. PRAYER IN WP(MD)No. 7267 of 2010: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the third respondent to initiate land acquisition proceedings to acquire the lands required for the petitioner Trust as stated in the petition dated 05.04.2010 and assign the same on the market value to the petitioner as per application of the petitioner dated: 05.04.2010 in accordance with law. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 For Appellants : Mr.M.Ajmal Khan For Respondent 1 : Mr.M.Kalyana Sundaram Senior Counsel For Mr.Ramakrishnan For Respondents 2to 4 : Mr.R.Karthikeyan Additional Government Pleader COMMON JUDGMENT [Judgment of the Court was delivered BY M.M.SUNDRESH, J.] These Writ Appeals are filed at the instance of the appellants who are third parties. Considering the fact that the issues involved in both the Writ Appeals are one and the same and both the Writ Appeals have been filed challenging the very same order of the learned Single Judge dated 25.06.2010, they have been taken up together and a Common Judgment is being passed. 2. It is the specific case of the appellants in both the Writ Appeals that the direction issued by the learned Single Judge to the fourth respondent herein to consider the case of the first respondent herein by taking note of the representation dated 05.04.2010 is not maintainable in law and facts. 3. Mr.M.Ajmal Khan, learned counsel for the appellants in both the Writ Appeals submitted that no Writ of Mandamus would lie in the absence of any statutory right vested with the first respondent. The learned counsel further submitted that the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, particularly with reference to Chapter VII, which deals with companies, do not permit an acquisition for the establishment of hospital. The learned counsel also submitted that the lands, which the first respondent seeks to acquire, are fertile lands belonging to the appellants, and therefore, these Writ Appeals will have to be allowed. 4. Per contra, a counter affidavit has been filed by the first respondent. Based on the counter affidavit, Mr.K.Kalyanasundaram, learned Senior Counsel for the first respondent submitted that the first respondent has no objection to allow these Writ Appeals by setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge dated 25.06.2010. However, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that considering the genuineness of the representation made by the first respondent, a direction will have to be issued to respondents 2 and 3 herein to consider the representation made by the first respondent dated 05.04.2010 for the purpose of acquiring the lands belonging to the private parties under Rule 4(1) of the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963. 5. As submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants, no Writ of Mandamus would lie in the absence of any legal right. Considering the fact that the first respondent in both the Writ Appeals does not have any legal right to seek a direction to respondents 2 to 4 to take steps to acquire the lands for its own benefit, we are of the view that the order of the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside. 6. Accordingly, the order of the learned Single Judge dated 25.06.2010 made in W.P.(MD).No.7267 of 2010 is hereby set aside and these Writ Appeals are allowed. We make it clear that it is very well open to the first https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 respondent or any of its subsidiaries to work out its remedy in the manner known to law, if so advised. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. SD ASST REGISTRAR ( WRITS ) /TRUE COPY/ SUB ASST REGISTRAR NB To 1.The Secretary to Government, Ministry of Health and Family (MCA2) Department, Secretariat, Chennai. 2.The Secretary to Government (Land Administration), Secretariat, Chennai. 3.The District Collector, Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil. 1CC TO MR. N.S. RAMAKRISHNADASS, ADVOCATE, SR: 25922: 1CC TO THE SPL. GOVT PLEADER SR: 26111: 2CC'S TO MR. M. AJMAL KHAN, ADVOCATE, SR: 26241: DM::2011:AUGUST:04:: COMMON JUDGMENT MADE IN W.A.(MD).Nos.486 and 664 of 2011 AND MP(MD)Nos. 2, 3, 3 of 2011 03.08.2011 3p:8c:: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/