The Madurai Bench dismissed the writ appeal for non-prosecution as the appellant/counsel failed to appear or provide any representation on the date of hearing. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 25.07.2017
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR W.A.(MD)No.878 of 2014 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2014
K.A.Jeevan Kumar @ Jeevan Lal : Appellant/Petitioner
Vs.
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act, praying to set aside the order passed by this Hon'ble Court in W.P.(MD)No.8334 of 2014 vide its order dated 15.05.2014 and thereby declaring that the acquisition poroceedings initiated by the second respondent vide Award No.8/64, Roc.No.6500/63-D dated 24.03.1964 in respect of the appellant's property situated in Sruvey No.11/12, Re-Survey No.13/11 at Parasurampatti Village, Madurai, shall be deemed to have lapsed as per Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and consequently direct the respondents not to disturb his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property.
Prayer in WP(MD). 8334/ 2014 :
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court To issue a Writ of Declaration by declaring that the acquistion proceedings initiated by the 2nd respondent vide Award NO. 8/64, ROC. no. 6500/63-D dated 24.03.1964 in respect of the petitioner s property siutated in survey No. 11/02 , re-Survey No. 13/11 at Parasurampatti Village, Madurai, shall be deemd to have lapsed as per Section 24 (2) of the right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquistion Rehabilitation and resettlement Act, 2013 and consequently direct the Respondents not to disturb his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property.
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For Appellant : No appearance
2
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.M.SUNDRESH, J. ]
On the last occasion, the learned counsel for the appellant reported no instruction. Thus, we directed the Registry to print the name of the appellant. Even today, there is no representation on behalf of the appellant.
2.In view of the same, the Writ Appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CO)
/True Copy/
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
Madurai District.
+1cc to THE SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER in SR. No.68287
MR/RMI
JS/MR.KKR/SAR.4/7.8.2017/2P-4C
JUDGMENT MADE IN W.A.(MD)No.725 of 2014 25.07.2017
K.A.Jeevan Kumar @ Jeevan Lal
The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai
The Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai, Madurai District
M.M.Sundresh
N.Sathish Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
