Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, J
V.Arumugam – Appellant
Versus
The Additional Secretary, Government of Tamilnadu, Adi Dravida Welfare Department, Chennai. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks reconveyance of land post-acquisition. (Para 1) |
| 2. government advocate argues against reconveyance based on existing laws. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. court dismisses the writ petition while allowing fresh representation. (Para 4) |
O R D E R
After submitting a represesntation dated 21.07.2025 seeking reconveyance of acquired land, the persent Writ Petition has been filed. The petitioner asserts that he was the owner of 56 ares in survey No. 139/3 at Veeravanur Village, Paramakudi Taluk. According to the petitioner, the land has not been put to use in spite of the lapse of 25 years from the date of acquisition. By relying on section 101 of the Act of
2013, the petitioner seeks reconveyance.
2. Learned Government Advocate accepts notice for all the respondents. He submits that the acquisition was done under Act 31 of
1978. He also submits that the said enactment does not provide for reconveyance.
3. The agreed position is that the petitioner or members of his family have received compensation in relation to the acquired land. As submitted by learned Government Advocate, it has been held categorically by this Court in more than one judgment that Act 31 of 1978 does n
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
