Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, R.POORNIMA, JJ
M.Valliammal – Appellant
Versus
The Secretary to Government, Public Works Department (Irrigation) – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. prior acquisition final; no lapse under section 24. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. indore sc ruling: conjunctive 'or' bars relief. (Para 6) |
(Order of the Court was made by G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.)
Heard both sides.
2. The petitioner challenges the impugned notice dated 16.11.2018 issued by the 5th respondent herein calling upon the petitioner to vacate from the petition mentioned land. The petitioner also wants the compensation to be fixed for the petition mentioned land as per the Central Act 30 of 2013.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the land acquisition proceedings initiated in respect of the subject land should be deemed to have lapsed in view of Section 24 of 2013 Act. He also would add that the award was passed in the name of the petitioner's son Senthil Kumar and that therefore, it cannot be taken as a valid award.
4. We are not impressed by the said submissions. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit as well as typed set of papers. It is seen that the notification under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on
04.05.2000. The authorities had invoked the urgency clause under Section 17 of the Act. Challenging the acquisition proc
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
