Dismissed

The Special Tahsildar v. Govindarajuly Naidu

Madras HC6 Dec 2019AS/820/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed a First Appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act. The court held that since the issue regarding compensation had already been settled and confirmed in a connected batch of LAOPs (LAOP No.46 of 2001), the present appeal suit was unsustainable and stood dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The Appeal Suit filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act is dismissed confirming the order of the Principal Sub Judge. Connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed with no order as to

The Special Tahsildar Vs Govindarajuly Naidu — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 06-12-2019

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶5

A.S.No.820 of 2010 And

¶6

M.P.No.1 of 2010

¶7

The Special Tahsildar, L.A.4, TACID, Cuddalore, Now Revenue Divisional Officer, Cuddalore. ... Appellant/Referring Officer

¶8

vs. Govindarajulu Naidu ... Respondent/Claimant

¶9

First Appeal is filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, against the judgment and decree dated 16.12.2006 made in LAOP No.43 of 2001 on the file of the learned Principal Sub Judge, Cuddalore. For Appellant : Mr.J.Bala Gopal, Special Government Pleader (AS). For Respondent : Mr.R.Gururaj J U D G M E N T

¶10

The Appeal Suit on hand is filed by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 16.12.2006 passed by the learned Principal Sub Judge, Cuddalore in LAOP No.43 of 2001.

¶11

With reference to the very same acquisition proceedings against the order passed on the same date, in a batch of LAOPs on 16.12.2006 in LAOP No.46 of 2001, A.S.No.892 of 2010 was filed and the said Appeal Suit was disposed of by this Court on 18.02.2014, wherein the following orders were passed:-

¶12

“6. From a perusal of the records, it is seen that R.W.1, Revenue Divisional Officer himself admitted that the lands acquired are situate at Andarmullipallam

¶13

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

¶14

Village, which is 6.25 Kms. away from Cuddalore and 25 Kms. away from Chidambaram. He also admitted that it is just 2 Kms. away from the sea and the lands are acquired for the promotion of industrial corporations at Tamil Nadu and for natural infrastructure development. Ex.C.1, G.O. shows that the lands referred to therein were also acquired for industrial purposes and the reason for acquiring them is the proximity of lands to the National Highways and Railway lines. It is also pertinent to note that the said G.O. is dated 30.6.1997 whereas the date of 4 (1) Notification is 28.12.1998. Therefore, based on the above evidence, the Reference Court had fixed the compensation at Rs.2000/- per cent, ie., Rs.10,000/- in total. In view of the said factual position, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the well considered order of the Reference Court made in L.A.O.P. No.46 of 2001 as the amount awarded itself is very meagre. In the result, the First Appeal fails and the same is dismissed confirming the order dated 16.12.2006 passed by the Principal Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore in L.A.O.P. No. 46 of 2001. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.”

¶15

In view of the fact that the issue has already been settled and the order passed in the said LAOP was confirmed, this Court is of an opinion that the present Appeal Suit is also to be dismissed. Consequently, the judgment and decree passed by the learned Principal Sub Judge, Cuddalore in LAOP No.43 of 2001 dated 16.12.2006 is confirmed and accordingly, the present Appeal Suit stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.

¶16

//True Copy//

¶17

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶18

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

¶19

¶20

The Principal Sub Judge, Principal Sub Court, Cuddalore.

¶21

2.The Section Officer,

¶22

VR Section, High Court, Madras.

¶23

+1cc to the Special Government Pleader Sr.102613

¶24

A.S.No.820 of 2010
ak[co]
srg 06/08/2020

¶25

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

The Special Tahsildar v. Govindarajuly Naidu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Special Tahsildar v. Govindarajuly Naidu

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 Chairman Cum Managing Vs Deivalingam

Union of India Vs Nadarajan

M/S Next Link P Ltd. Vs N.Ramachandran

Sivaparvathy Vs Sivagami & 3 Others

Vasuki Vs Ramakrishnan

Chinnasamy S/O. Ramasamy Vs Rajeswari D/O. Perumal