Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
S.K.Ashok Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu (SIPCOT) – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction to the petitions and relevant legal framework. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. background facts regarding land acquisition for industrial purposes. (Para 4) |
| 3. petitioner's arguments against the acquisition procedure. (Para 5) |
| 4. respondent's counterarguments against the petitioners' claims. (Para 6) |
| 5. overview of issues considered by the court. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 6. court's analysis on the effect of section 3(1) notification. (Para 9) |
| 7. rules on environmental clearance requisites. (Para 10) |
| 8. findings and conclusions drawn by the court. (Para 12) |
| 9. final dismissal of the petitions. (Para 13) |
ORDER :
Krishnan Ramasamy, J.
The writ petitions, in WP.Nos.20539, 20544, 20545, 20548, 20541 of 2024, 1294, 7000, 7005, 7011, 7016, 7022 of 2025, 29613, 29699, 29706 & 29724 of 2025, have been filed challenging the impugned Notification dated 09.05.2024, 17.10.2024 & 25.04.2025 (hereinafter called as “Section 3(1) Notification”) issued under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 (hereinafter called as “1997 Act”).
2. The writ petitions, in WP.Nos.10310, 10316 & 10323 of 2025, have been filed against the impugned Enter Upon Permission dated
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
