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

1990 Supreme(Mad) 483

KANAKARAJ
Narayana Rajoo and Others – Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu and Another – Respondent


Advocates:
S.Elamurugan, for Petitioner. Bhavanandam, Additional Government Pleader, for Respondents.

Judgment :

The petitioners purchased different parcels of land in Silayaneri village, Madurai Taluk for construction of residential houses for them. Only when the petitioners were served with notice under Secs.9(3) and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act, they became aware of the Land Acquisition proceedings in respect of their lands. The award enquiry was conducted on 16. 1982 and the petitioners submitted their objections. It is the case of the petitioners that they had not been served with notices for the enquiry under Sec.5-A of the Act. On enquiry, the petitioners came to know that the notification under Sec.4(l) of the Act was published in the Gazette on 25. 1977 and declaration under Sec.6 was published on 25. 1980. The writ petition is for the issue of a writ of mandamus, forbearing the respondents to proceed with the acquisition of their lands under Sec.4(l) and the Declaration under Sec.6.

2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. It is stated that the Notification under Sec4(l) was published in the Gazette on 25. 1977. The names of the petitioners did not find a place in the notification because their names were not shown in the Revenue Records. Theenquiry un









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