SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2000 Supreme(Mad) 619

P.SATHASIVAM
Chelladurai – Appellant
Versus
The Government of Tamil Nadu and another – Respondent


Advocates:
A.Sivaji, for Petitioner.
V.Selvarangam, for Respondents.

ORDER: Aggrieved by the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents for the public purpose, namely, for formation of a neighbourhood scheme, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition.

2. After taking me through the various averments in the affidavit filed in support of the above writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the following contentions: (1) The respondents have not conducted proper enquiry in terms of Sec.5-A of the Land Acquisition Act (Central Act) and Rule 4(b) of the Land Acquisition Rules; (2) The local publication was not made in the Dailies having circulation in the locality where the land is situated. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate, after taking me through the impugned proceedings as well as the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent, would contend that the respondents have fully complied with the mandatory provisions of the said Act and Rules and there is no defect or error in the acquisition proceedings, accordingly prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

3. It is seen from the proceedings that the petitioner is the owner of 10 cents in T.S.No.N-4-24/2 of Nagercoil village, Agasteeswaram Taluk, Ka







Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top