Disposed

K.N.Subramanian v. The Appellate Authority/ The

Madras HC16 Mar 2016WP/9655/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought a direction to conclude an inquiry into his land matter. The Court held that while the opposing party was not impleaded, the respondent should conclude proceedings expeditiously after issuing notice to all objecting parties within four months.

What did the court decide?

Respondent directed to conclude proceedings after issuing notice to petitioner and objecting party within four months.

K.N.Subramanian Vs The Appellate Authority/ The — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated : 16.03.2016

¶3

Coram

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶5

Writ Petition No.9655 of 2016

¶6

K.N.Subramanian ...Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The Appellate Authority/Additional Chief Secretary/Commissioner for

¶9

Land Administration, Land Administration, Chepauk, Chennai.

¶10

The District Collector and Licence Issuing Authority, Coimbatore. ...Respondents

¶11

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the second respondent to complete the enquiry in Na.Ka.No.1480/2015/Vu2, dated 08.05.2015, and to pass orders in pursuant to the proceedings of the first respondent, dated 27.07.2015, in R.C.No.L3/14397/2015.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Anandhamurthy

¶13

For Respondents : Mr.J.Balagopal

¶14

Additional Government Pleader

¶15

Heard Mr.V.Anandhamurthy, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.J.Balagopal, the learned Additional Government Pleader, who accepts notice for respondents. With the consent of the parties, the main Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.

¶16

The petitioner seeks for an innocuous direction, viz., to direct the second respondent to conclude the enquiry, which has been commenced, pursuant to the notice, dated 15.09.2015, by which, the petitioner was directed to appear for enquiry on 28.09.2015.

¶17

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

¶18

The petitioner would state that, as directed, he appeared before for enquiry on 28.09.2015, in the Office of the second respondent, but the proceedings stood adjourned sine die. Therefore, the petitioner seeks for a direction upon the second respondent to conclude the enquiry in a time bound manner. However, the petitioner has not impleaded the person, who is said to be opposing the petitioner's prayer, who was represented through the counsel before the Appellate Authority. Thus, in the absence of such person, who is remaining as an obstacle to the petitioner's prayer, no positive direction can be issued to the second respondent, as sought for by the petitioner. However, considering the fact that the second respondent has already taken up the matter, and commenced enquiry, this Court is of the view that, it would be appropriate for the second respondent to conclude the proceedings expeditiously, in the light of the order of remand passed by the Appellate Authority. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of, by directing the second respondent to conclude the proceedings after issuing notice to the petitioner and other parties, who is objecting to the petitioner's request and after hearing the parties, the second respondent shall pass final orders in accordance with law, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 4. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS III) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar sd To 1. The Appellate Authority/Additional Chief Secretary/Commissioner for Land Administration, Land Administration, Chepauk, Chennai. 2. The District Collector and Licence Issuing Authority, Coimbatore. +1cc to M/s. V. Anandhamoorthy, Advocate, S.R.No.16848 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.16950 MP(CO) EU(30/03/2016)

¶19

Writ Petition No.9655 of 2016

¶20

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

K.N.Subramanian v. The Appellate Authority/ The

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.N.Subramanian v. The Appellate Authority/ The

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Management of Vs Thiru. M.Angu Naidu

V.Ranjith Vs Praveen Ranjan IPS

R.Radhakrishnan Vs The Commissioner

The Management of Addison & Co. Vs the Joint Commissioner of

V.Selvaraj Vs State of Tamil Nadu

N.Janakiraman Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu