Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J
R.Jayalakshmi – Appellant
Versus
The Managing Director, Chennai Metro Rail Ltd. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to land acquisition notice accepted. (Para 2) |
| 2. notice withdrawal renders petition infructuous. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. petition disposed with liberty for fresh proceedings. (Para 5) |
ORDER
The petitioner has challenged the impugned notice, dated 02.01.2026 in Form-B as per the provisions of Section 3(2) of theTamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997.
2. Mr.B.Vijay, learned Standing Counsel accepts notice on behalf of the first respondent. Mr.M.R.Gokul Krishnan, learned Additional Government Pleader accepts notice on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 and 3.
3. On instructions, the learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent submits that the first respondent has decided to withdraw the impugned notice, dated 02.01.2026 issued in Form-B as per the provisions of Section 3(2) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 , but, however, proposes to issue a fresh notice for the two survey numbers in S.No.210/34A and S.No.210/35A.
4. Since the first respondent has decided to withdraw the impugned notice, dated 02.01.2026, the prayer sought for in this Writ Petition has now become infructuous.
5. After recording the under
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
