PRABHA SRIDEVAN
O. U. Sindha Madhar – Appellant
Versus
The Special Tahsildar, Adhi Dravida Welfare Land Acquisition, Tenkasi, Nellai Kattabomman District and others – Respondent
2. In this case, the proceedings of the Tahsildar indicate that notice was served only to one Mohd.Yusuf, S/o.Shahul Hameed and therefore, the notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act also refers only to Mohd.Yusuff, S/o.Shahul Hameed as the owner of the land sought to be acquired. The recommendations of the Special Tahsildar on 16.9.1995 also indicate that the Village Administrative Officer had informed that the patta was in Mohd.Yusuff’s name and that he alone is in enjoyment of the lands. For the first time, in the Form III notice issued under Rule 5(i), the petitioner’s name is found. It is apparent even from the counter that the petitioner has not been shown as the person interested at
State of Tamil Nadu v. Ananthi Ammal A.I.R. 1995 S.C. 2114
Ramachandra v. Govind A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 915
State of Haryana v. Hari Ram Yadav [1994] 2 S.C.C. 617
S. P. Vedanayagam v. Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu
K. Gopanna Reddiar v. The Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravida Welfare Department
The Land Acquisition Officer and Special Tahsildhar (LA) Adi Dravida Welfare
The Land Acquisition Officer and Special Tahsildar (LA) v. R. Manickammal [2002] 2 C.T.C. 1
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.