Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Krishnan Ramasamy, J
Vattam Jagadish – Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks application of 2013 act compensation norms due to prior litigation precedents. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. failure to take physical possession triggers the requirement to calculate compensation under the 2013 act. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. court remits matter for fresh compensation assessment under the 2013 act with specific payment directives. (Para 10) |
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated
23.08.2021 passed by the 2nd respondent.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in this case, the petitioner’s land was acquired by the respondents for public purpose and subsequently, vide impugned order dated 23.08.2021, the compensation for acquired portion was determined in terms of Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 (hereinafter called as “1997 Act).
3. Further, he would submit that already a batch of writ petitions in WP.Nos.7550 of 2012, etc., had been filed against the very same acquisition made by the respondents. In the said batch, this Court, vide order dated 17.10.2022, had directed the Authority concerned to determine the compensation, in terms of the provisions of The
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
