K.RAMASWAMY, M.K.MUKHERJEE, SUHAS C.SEN
Neyvely Lignite Corporation – Appellant
Versus
Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) Neyvely – Respondent
JUDGMENT
These appeals arise from the judgments of the Madras High Court in one batch in C.R.P.Nos. 1141-1351/87 and batch dated April 7,1989; (reported in 1989 (1) Mad LJ 533) and another batch from a judgment of the Full Bench rendered in M/s Neyvely Lignite Corpn. Ltd v. P. Ramaswami Naidu, AIR 1990 Mad.160. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1 of 1894 for short the Act was published in the year 1975 acquiring a large extent of 5200 acres of land for the purpose of excavating inferior quality of the coal in South Arcot District in the State of Tamil Nadu. The Tahsildar, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation in the years 1977-80 under Section 11 of the Act. Dissatisfied therewith, the claimants sought and secured over 2000 references under Section 18 to the Civil Court, namely, the Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore. In some of which the Civil Court made awards and decrees under Section 26. In the pending references the appellant sought to be impleaded as a party respondent to adduce evidence for fixation of the proper compensation. The Civil Court dismissed the applications holding that the appellant is not an interested person by a common order d
Harish Chandra v. Deputy Land Acquisition Officer
Union of India v. Kolluni Rainaiah
N. Krishnamachari v. Managing Director, APSRTC
harmonised and affirmed : Himalayan Tiles and Marble (P) Ltd. v. Francis Victor Coutinho
distinguished : Santosh Kumar v. central Warehousing Corpn.
overruled : Municipal Corpn. of the City of Ahmedabad v. Chandulal Shamaldas Patel
relied on : Neelagangabai v. State of Karnataka
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.