w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



S. Devaraj & Another v/s The Superintending Engineer/Civil, Hydro Project/Vendipalayam, Erode & Another


Company & Directors' Information:- S K B PROJECT (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45202MP2008PTC020457

Company & Directors' Information:- A J PROJECT PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70101WB2006PTC110040

Company & Directors' Information:- M B S PROJECT PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45209GJ2000PTC038147

Company & Directors' Information:- K C PROJECT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U55101DL1997PTC088558

Company & Directors' Information:- A. H. PROJECT PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400WB2010PTC141970

Company & Directors' Information:- B & G HYDRO PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U40100TN2022PTC149922

Company & Directors' Information:- HYDRO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29120MH1998PTC121434

Company & Directors' Information:- H E F PROJECT PRIVATE LIMITED [Converted to LLP] CIN = U74899DL1995PTC069794

Company & Directors' Information:- AT HYDRO PRIVATE LIMITED [Not available for efiling] CIN = U40108DL2002PTC114208

Company & Directors' Information:- B J S PROJECT PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900WB2015PTC206605

Company & Directors' Information:- PROJECT Q AND S PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999HR2020PTC086437

Company & Directors' Information:- HYDRO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U93000DL1998PTC096850

Company & Directors' Information:- K D PROJECT PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45400MH2010PTC209307

Company & Directors' Information:- E PROJECT PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72300HR2015PTC057142

    W.P. No. 7626 of 2012 & M.P. No. 1 of 2012 & W.M.P. No. 6801 of 2018

    Decided On, 09 December 2019

    At, High Court of Judicature at Madras

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

    For the Petitioners: C. Prakasam, Advocate, For the Respondents: R1 & R2, N. Damodaran (TNEB), Advocate.



Judgment Text


(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, call for the entire records relating to the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in Memo.No.SE/C/HP/VPM/AEE/MM/SDM.I/ F.BKBII(R.F)TreesComp./D.267/2011, dated 03.09.2011 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to pay enhance compensation for cut down big trees a sum of Rs.5,000/- per tree, a sum of Rs.4,000/- for small big coconut trees each, a sum of Rs.500/- each for coconut plant and a sum of Rs.750/- each for palm trees to the petitioners.)

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to quash the impugned order dated 03.09.2011, passed by the first respondent and consequently direct the respondents to pay the petitioner enhanced compensation for cutting down big trees at Rs.5,000/- per tree, a sum of Rs.4,000/- per tree for small coconut trees, a sum of Rs.500/- each for coconut plant and a sum of Rs.750/- each for palm trees to the petitioners.

2. It is the case of the petitioners that for construction of staff quarters for Bhavani Kattalai Barriage – II (BKB – II), check dam project, their lands were acquired and their trees were cut by the respondents. According to the petitioners, the respondents have fixed the compensation for the felled trees in the petitioners land under the impugned order dated 03.09.2011.

3. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded to the petitioners for the felled trees under the impugned order, this writ petition has been filed.

4. A counter affidavit has also been filed by the respondents denying the allegations contained in the writ petition.

5. According to them, the price was fixed for the felled trees of the petitioners only based on the rates which was approved by the Agricultural Department, Erode vide their letter dated 10.07.2006 i.e., the rates for the coconut trees big and small assessed at Rs.5,000/- and Rs.4,000/- respectively, for tender coconut trees the rate was Rs.500/- each and palm trees big at Rs.750/- each.

6. It is their case that the land owners have stated in their letter dated 17.07.2007 that they are agreeable to the price as fixed by the Agricultural Department. Therefore, according to the respondents, the petitioners having agreed to receive the compensation as per the rates fixed by the Agricultural Department, they cannot file a writ petition seeking enhancement of compensation for the felled trees.

7. Heard Mr.C.Prakasam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.N.Damodaran, learned counsel for the respondents.

8. Admittedly, in the case on hand, the petitioners and other land owners in the same area where the lands were acquired for the check dam project, have agreed to receive the compensation for the felled trees as per the rates fixed by the Agricultural Department, Erode. The Agricultural Department, Erode has also after inspection of the trees belonging to the petitioners which were felled by the respondents have given an assessment report fixing the price for the trees felled by the respondents at the petitioners land. The impugned G.O. has taken into consideration, the rates fixed by the Agricultural Department and only thereafter has fixed the price of the trees belonging to the petitioners which were felled by the respondents for construction of staff quarters for the check dam project. The adjacent land owners who were also compensated for their trees have also been paid only based on the rates fixed by the Agricultural Department, Erode. The land owners have infact addressed a letter to the respondents agreeing to receive the compensation for the felled trees as per the rates fixed by the Agricultural Department, Erode.

9. For the foregoing reasons, the petitioners are estopped from reagitating for enhanced compensation in view of the fact that they have already agreed to rece

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

ive the compensation as per the rates fixed by the Agricultural Department, Erode for their felled trees. 10. For the aforementioned reasons, this Court is of the considered view that impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity and there is no merit in this writ petition. 11. Accordingly, the instant writ petition shall stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed if any.
O R