Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL & M. SATHYANARAYANAN, JJ.
R. Thamaraiselvan
Versus
Government of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Chief Secretary to Government & Others
W.P. Nos. 18872, 21126, 25876, 25877, 26773, 26883, 27215, 27216, 27436, 27502, 27503, 27504, 27505 of 2011 and W.P. Nos. 8227, 8261, 10185, 10198, 10775, 25834, 26956, 26957, 28060 of 2012, 4476, 28413, 31673, 20481, of 2014, 24925 of 2013 & W.P(MD). No. 19726 of 2014
Decided on: 10-02-2015
Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 6 - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Sections 17 and 18 - Evidence Act, 1842 - Section 110 - Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 59 - Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers Drug Offenders Gonads Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum-Grabbers Act, 1982 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 14, 21 and 300A - Malaise intention and political vendetta - Immovable properties – First Information Report - A perusal of affidavit filed in support of these writ petitions reveal factual aspects as well as legal submissions and since challenge is made to above said two Government Orders broadly on grounds of violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300A of Constitution of India and that impugned Government Orders have been issued with malaise intention and political vendetta and further that without defining term Land Grabbing a separate Cell cannot be formed to investigate land grabbing cases and consequential Special Courts it is not necessary to deal with facts pleaded in these writ petitions and it would be suffice to deal with legal plea raised on behalf of respective writ petitioners - Filed as Public Interest Litigations and was filed by a political party - A Division Bench of this Court has considered objections raised by official respondents with regard to maintainability of above said writ petitions as Public Interest Litigations - Division Bench after elaborately considering rival submissions has passed a detailed interim order holding that filed by political party is not maintainable – Held, A Division Bench of High Court held that State Government is empowered to declare whole of State or any part as local jurisdiction - It was urged before High Court that Section 11(1) of Criminal Procedure Code excludes no notification under said Section excluding jurisdiction of Metropolitan Magistrate can be issued by State Government - Division Bench of High Court held that though Kanpur was a metropolitan area but it is also a district for purpose of Criminal Procedure Code and therefore Special Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class has jurisdiction to try economic offences arising in that places - Division Bench also considered scope of Article 14 of Constitution of India and held that Article 14 does not forbid classification which rests upon reasonable ground of distinction and it prohibits legislation which is limited either in objects or to which it is directed or by territory within which it is to operate - Principle of equity does not mean that every law has to be applied universally to all person who by nature require different treatment - As already held above definition for word phrase Land Grabber has not been defined and so also Land Grabbing and only in event of definition of said words phrases concerned persons can be picked and choose for different treatment to deal with those kind of cases but unfortunately no such definition is in place - Constitution of Special Courts under Prevention of Corruption Act was challenged and so also appointment of Special Judges under Section 3(1) of P.C. Act for trying a case or group of cases within particular area was challenged and Honble Supreme Court of India in light of specific provision under section 3(1) of P.C. Act held that Government has power to appoint Special Judge to try a particular case or group of cases but in case on hand this Court has pointed out that for registering investigating and trying cases under Sections 447, 420 and 506(ii) IPC and other offences regular courts are conferred with jurisdiction to try those cases and also placed reliance upon observations made in Para case and held that registering cases and investigating it in respect of offenders namely Land Grabbers is wholly arbitrary and not proper classification - Though it is to be stated that constitution of Special Courts to try particular type of cases cannot stated to be bad in law in light of this Court holding is to be quashed as a natural corollary in constituting Special Courts is also liable to be quashed as no purpose would be served by keeping such Special Courts in existence - Writ petitions allowed
M. Sathyanarayanan, J.
1. The subject matter of challenge in these writ petitions is the order issued by the Home (Police-XI) Department in G.O.(Ms).No.423 dated 28.07.2011 in ordering the formation of 36 Anti Land Grabbing Special Cells in Tamil Nadu to deal with land grabbing cases.
2. In W.P. No. 31673/2014 filed by Mr. G. Ramamoorthy, apart from challenge made to G.O. (Ms). No. 423 dated 28.07.2011 referred to supra, G.O. (Ms). No. 451 dated 11.08.2011 passed by the very same department constituting Special Courts in certain districts to exclusively conduct trial of land grabbing cases under the Code of Criminal Procedure is also put to challenge.
3. Heard the submissions of Mr. R. Viduthalai, assisted by Mrs. Geetha Thamarai Selvan and the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P. No. 18872/2011, Mr. P. Wilson, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. V. Arun, Mr. S. Ullasavelan, Mr. A. Karthik Jaganath, Mr. K. Kannan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P. Nos. 21126/2011, 27215/2011, 27216/2011, 26956/2012, 26957/2012 and 27503/2011 respectively, Mr. R. Shanmugasundaram, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. A.S. Kaizar and Mr. J. Kannan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P. Nos. 26773/2011 and 27502/2011 respectively, Mr. S.M. Subramanian, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P. Nos. 25876/2011 and 25877/2011 and 26883/2011, Mr. P. Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P. Nos. 26684/2011 and 26685/2011, Mr. K.R. Vijayakumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P. No. 27436/2011, Mr. E.C. Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P. Nos. 27504 and 27505/2011, Mr. A. Kalaiselvan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P. Nos. 8227/2012, 8261/2012 and 10185/2012 and Mr. S. Santhosh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P. No. 10198/2012, Mr. K. Selvaraj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P. Nos. 10775/2012 and 20481/2014, Mr. P. Subbha Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P. No. 25874/2012, Mr. G. Krishnakumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P. No. 28060/2012 and M/s. Ajmal Associates for the petitioner in M.P. No. 1/2012 in W.P. No. 28060/2012, Mr. G. Ethirajulu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P. Nos. 4476/2014 and 24925/2013, Mrs. R. Aparna, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P. No. 28413/2014 and W.P(MD).No.17926/2014, Mrs. R. Anitha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P. No. 31673/2014, Mr. K.T.S. Tulsi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. S. Shanmugavelayutham, learned Public Prosecutor and S.T.S. Moorthy, learned Government Pleader and Mr. V. Jayaprakash Narayanan, learned Special Govt. Pleader appearing for the State Government in all the writ petitions, Mr. R. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent in W.P. Nos. 27502 and 27503/2011 and also for the Registrar General, High Court, Madras, Mr. M. Purushothaman, learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent in W.P. No. 18872/2011, Mr. V. Raghupathi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 5 and 6 in W.P. No. 18872/2011 and Mr. Elephant Rajendran, petitioner/party-in-person in W.P. No. 18872/2011.
4. A perusal of the affidavit filed in support of these writ petitions reveal the factual aspects as well as the legal submissions and since challenge is made to the above said two Government Orders broadly on the grounds of violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and that the impugned Government Orders have been issued with malafide intention and political vendetta and further that without defining the term “Land Grabbing” a separate Cell cannot be formed to investigate land grabbing cases and the consequential Special Courts, it is not necessary to deal with the facts pleaded in these writ petitions and it would be suffice to deal with the legal plea raised on behalf of t
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
