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

2000 Supreme(Mad) 76

T.MEENA KUMARI
Mrs. Chinthamani and 2 others – Appellant
Versus
The Special Tahsildar for Land Acquisition and another – Respondent


Advocates:
Mr.S. Kanniah, Advocate for Petitioners. Mr.S. Wilson, Government Advocate
for Respondents.

Judgment :

1. In this writ petition the petitioners have chosen to question the land acquisition proceedings under Section 4(1) and also under Section 6 on the ground that the person interested has not been issued any notice. Section 4(1) notification has been issued on 12. 1991, it has been gazetted on 13. 1991, paper publication was made on 13. 1991, it was published in the locality on 13. 1991. Section 5-A enquiry was conducted on 16. 1991 and Section 6 declaration was issued on 26. 1991. The petitioners have chosen to file this writ petition after the declaration under Section 6 on the ground that no notice has been issued to the petitioners sister by name Mrs.Chinthamani, who has got a share in the property. Even though the Land Acquisition Officer has been informed of the above fact, the writ petition was admitted and interim stay of dispossession was ordered. However the award was passed on 211. 1992.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that though the name of the petitioners sister namely, Mrs.Chinthamani is not found in the revenue records during the course of the 5-A enquiry it has been brought to the notice of the Land Acquisition Officer that she is one



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