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

2012 Supreme(Mad) 3165

M.Y.EQBAL, T.S.SIVAGNANAM
Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Commissioner and Secretary to Government – Appellant
Versus
Mecca Prime Tannery, Rep. by its Managing Director Tmt. V. Jayakodi – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants:S. Gomathi Nayagam, Addl. Advocate General Assisted by Mr. S. Venkatesh, Govt. Pleader, N. Ramaiah, Govt. Advocate, AR.L. Sundaresan, Senior Counsel for S. Ramesh, P. Jagadeesan, R. Balakrisnnan, Advocates.
For the Respondents:S. Gomathi Nayagam, Addl. Advocate General Assisted by S. Venkatesh, Govt. Pleader by N. Ramaiah, Govt. Advocate, P.S. Raman, Senior Counsel for S. Ramesh, Sriram Panchu, Senior Counsel for A.J. Jawad, Vijay Narayan, Senior Counsel for S.R. Rajagopal, V. Ramesh, T. Thiagarajan, P. Shanmugasundaram, M. Muthappan, G. Elangovan, R. Balakrisnnan, S. Krishnasamy, K. Mohana Murali, D. Rajendran, V. Prabhakar, S. Palani Velayutham, A. Ramu, S. Navaneethakrishnan, V. Gangadharan, M.K. Hidayathullah, Advocates.

Judgment

1. Since, in all these writ appeals, which are 27 in number, a common question of interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 and the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act 20 of 1999 has to be answered, they have been heard together and answered by this common judgment. All these appeals arose out of separate judgements delivered by learned single Judges in various writ petitions filed by aggrieved land owners. Almost all the writ petitions have been allowed mainly on the ground that physical possession of the lands continued with the land owners or the persons claiming through them. The factual details of each case have been discussed in the latter part of this judgment.

2. The State, which is the appellant in all but three appeals, has assailed the impugned judgments rendered by the writ courts as being illegal and wholly without jurisdiction. Mr. S. Gomathinayagam, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the appellant-State advanced elaborate arguments, the crux of which is summarised hereunder :-

(i) The Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act 20 of 1999
















































































































































































































































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