Dismissed

Karivetty, Kathalai, Mummudi v. State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC10 Jun 2015WP/12920/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In W.P.No.12920 of 2015, the petitioner sought to declare the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purpose Act, 1997, unconstitutional. The court allowed the petitioner to withdraw the petition with liberty to file individual petitions, thereby dismissing the writ petition. Concurrently, M.P.No.1 of 2015 was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file individual petitions.

Karivetty, Kathalai, Mummudi Vs State… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 10.06.2015

¶3

CORAM

¶4

The Hon'ble MR.SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶5

AND

¶6

The Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

W.P.No.12920 of 2015

and

M.P.No.1 of 2015

Karivetty, Kathalai, Mummudichologan, Sathapadi, U.Adhannor, Valaiyamadevi (West), Valaiyamdevi (east Land), House and Plots Owners Association (Reg.No.14/ 2013/Viruddhachalam) Rep. by its President, R.Kaliyamoorthy.

¶11

...Petitioner

¶12

-vs-

¶13

State of Tamil Nadu,

¶14

Rep. by its Addl. Chief Secretary to Government, Industries Department,

¶15

Fort St. George, Chennai.

¶16

The District Revenue Officer (L.A.) Neyveli.

¶17

The District Collector, Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.

¶18

Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director, Neyveli. ...Respondents

¶19

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of Writ of Declaration to declare the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purpose Act, 1997, as unconstitutional and ultravires of the Constitution.

¶20

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶21

For Petitioner : M/s.Narmadha Sampath For Respondents : Mr.S.T.S.Moorthy, Govt. Pleader for RR 1 to 3

¶22

Mr.N.Nithianandan for R-4

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

(Order of the Court was made by The Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶25

After some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to withdraw the petition with liberty to file individual petitions by land owners in accordance with law. We have made it clear to the learned counsel for the petitioner that if the constitutional validity of any provision is sought to be assailed, specific pleas dealing with the constitutional invalidity should be raised.

¶26

2.Writ Petition is, thus, dismissed as withdrawn, with aforesaid liberty. No costs. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2015 is also dismissed.

¶27

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CO)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
sra
To
1. The Addl. Chief Secretary to
Govt. of Tamil Nadu, Industries Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai.
2. The District Revenue Officer (L.A.)
Neyveli.
3. The District Collector,
Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.
1 CC to Mr.N.Nithianandan, Advocate SR.No. 27892
W.P.No.12920 of 2015
RV (CO)
PSI (08.07.2015)

¶28

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Karivetty, Kathalai, Mummudi v. State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karivetty, Kathalai, Mummudi v. State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.a.Rajendran Poosari Vs Jeyavelanpoosari

U.Kasipandian, Advocate Vs The Secretary, Govt of India

M.R.Saravanan, S/o.L.Rajagopal Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Vasanthakumar Vengadessane, Vs The Registrar General

R.Lakshmikanthan Vs S.Ayyasamy

Tamil Nadu Higher Secondary Vs The State of Tamil Nadu