Back
S. M. SUBRAMANIAM
Sathya Studios (P) Limited represented by its Managing Director, K. Swaminathan Chennai – Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu represented by its Secretary Madras – Respondent
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the 3rd respondent in proceedings Rc.No. (B3)/4958/1990 dated 01.12.2008 and quash the same.)
1. The writ on hand has been instituted to call for the records of the 3rd respondent in proceedings dated 01.12.2008 and to quash the same.
Factual Background in Nutshell:
2. In G.O.Ms.No.199, Revenue Department dated 21.01.1970, the Government leased out the land belongs to the Government measuring 1 Cawnie, 14 Grounds, 2340 Sq.ft to the Sathya Studio''s from 08.01.1968 for a period of 30 years at the rate of 7% of the market value of the land as lease rent. On 30.01.1970, possession was handed over to the writ petitioner / Sathya Studio''s Private Limited. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.3887, Revenue Department dated 02.07.1973, ordered the lease rent to be collected from 31.01.1970 i.e., the date on which the possession of the Government land was handed over to the lessee / Sathya Studio''s Private Limited.
3. In G.O.Ms.No.1263, Revenue Department dated 23.05.1975, the Government ordered to revise the lease rent for the leased out land at Rs
Government actions must be in conformity with reason and public interest. The Government cannot act arbitrarily and must act for the public good.
The court ruled that leases granted under conflict of interest and without adherence to natural justice principles are void ab initio, emphasizing the need for public officials to maintain integrity ....
The government cannot grant largess arbitrarily and must act in conformity with standard or norm which is not arbitrary, irrational, or irrelevant. Violations of land assignment conditions, including....
The Court emphasized the duty of the Authorities to protect the financial interest of the State and the importance of periodic review of Government largesse.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the resumption of land assigned to the Appellants violated their fundamental rights under Article 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. T....
Advocates appeared :For the Appellant : Ravish Agrawal, Sanjay Agrawal For the Respondent : Pushpendra Yadav, R. N. Singh, Akshay Pawar
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
