SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 36809

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 13.09.2021 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN W.P.Nos.10119 & 10120 of 2018 and W.M.P.Nos.12081 & 12082 of 2018 K.Ramakarishnan ... Petitioner in W.P.

No.10119 of 2018 M.P.Ramalingam ... Petitioner in W.P.

No.10120 of 2018 -Vs-

1. The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep, by its Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Social Welfare Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-9.

2. The District Collector, Salem District, Salem.

3. The District Revenue Officer, Salem District, Salem.

4. The Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare Office, Attur. ... Respondents in both W.Ps Prayer in W.P.No.10119 of 2018:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Declaration, declaring that the acquisition proceedings with respect to land in Survey No. 153/5 measuring an extent of 1.54 acres at Manjini Village, Attur Taluk, Salem District being the subject matter of Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 made in the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act in G.O.Ms.No.1477 Social Welfare Department dated 09.06.1986 and Award passed in No.4/1986-87 dated 02.01.1987 as lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and consequently forbear the respondents and their subordinates from any manner interfering with the petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the aforesaid properties.

Prayer in W.P.No.10120 of 2018:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Declaration, declaring that the acquisition proceedings with respect to land in Sruvey No. 153/6, an extent of 1.13 acres and Survey No. 153/8, an extent of 0.48 acres in Manjini Village, Attur Taluk, Salem District being the subject matter of Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 made in the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act in G.O.Ms.No.1477 Social Welfare Department dated 09.06.1986 and Award passed in No.4/1986- 87 dated 02.01.1987 as lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and consequently forbear the respondents and their subordinates from any manner interfering with the petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the aforesaid properties.

For Petitioners in both W.Ps. : Mr.S.Parthasarathy, Senior Counsel for P.Sivakumar For Respondents in both W.Ps. : Mr.Richardson Wilson Government Advocate. COMMON ORDER These Writ Petitions have been filed to declare that the acquisition proceedings in respect of the petitioners' land situated at Manjini Village, Attur Taluk, Salem District, being the subject matter of Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 made in the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act in G.O.Ms.No.1477 Social Welfare Department dated 09.06.1986 and Award passed in No.4/1986-87 dated 02.01.1987 as lapsed, in view of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (herein after called as “the new Act”) and consequently forbear the respondents and their subordinates from any manner interfering with the petitioners' peaceful possession and enjoyment of their properties.

2. Heard Mr.S.Parthasarathy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.Richardson Wilson, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents in both the Writ Petitions.

3. These Writ Petitions have been filed challenging the acquisition proceedings on the two grounds that, the possession has not been taken and the compensation was not paid as such, the proceedings have been lapsed in view of the Section 24(2) of the new Act. According to the petitioners, the land was not utilized for the purpose for which t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top