Petitioner challenged an order cancelling a previous directive to accept compensation for surplus land declared excess, arguing state never took possession. Held that since possession was not taken, the impugned order is set aside and petition allowed.
The impugned order dated 31.03.2003 made in Na.Ka.m8.43/2003 is set aside.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 23.10.2017
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
W.P.No.11804 of 2004
R.Purushothaman Rep. by his Power Agent S.Dharmaraj ...Petitioner
The Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms), Urban Land Ceiling, Tiruchirappali
Vs .... Respondent
Prayer : Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the respondent dated 31.03.2003 made in Na.Ka.m8.43/2003 and quash the same.
For Petitioner : M/s.K.Radhakrishnan For Respondent : Mr.N.Srinivasan, AGP O R D E R
The petitioner has filed this petition to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the respondent dated 31.03.2003 made in Na.Ka.m8.43/2003 and quash the same.
in that behalf or by the competent authority. According to the petitioner, under Section 4 of the Repeal Act 20 of 1999, property vest with the petitioner and the respondent has not taken steps to acquire the same as per Section 11 (3) of 1978 Act and no steps have also been initiated under Section 11 (5) or 11 (6) of the 1978 Act.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS VI)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
pvs
To
The Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms),
Urban Land Ceiling, Tiruchirappali
+1cc to Mr.K.Radhakrishnan, Advocate, S.R.No.74470
W.P.No.11804 of 2004
RK(CO)
GN(21/11/2017)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order cancelling the earlier order regarding the declaration of land as excess should be quashed since possession has not been taken by the State.
Whether the right of the petitioner to retain possession prevails over the Government's claim to retain the surplus land for future public benefit.
Whether the repeal of the 1978 Act by Act 20 of 1999 affects the title of the land deemed to vest in the State under Section 11(3).
3 provisions across 3 enactments
R.Purushothaman Rep. by his Power Agent S.Dharmaraj
The Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms), Urban Land Ceiling, Tiruchirappali
S.Vaidyanathan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
