Allowed

M/S.Padma Mines and Mineral v. the Principal Secretary/

Madras HC9 Jul 2019WP/10386/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged an order cancelling a prior abatement decision made regarding urban land acquisition proceedings without a hearing. The court held that passing the order without an opportunity of being heard violated principles of natural justice.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; liberty granted to respondent to proceed with matter after following Act and natural justice.

M/S.Padma Mines and Mineral Vs the Principal Secretary/ — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED :09.07.2019

¶2

CORAM

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI W.P.No.10386 of 2009

¶4

M/s. Padma Mines and Mineral Corporation, represented by its Partner, Mr. S. Srinivasan, S/o. Somasundaram, No.2/493 Mambakkam Raod, Medavakkam, Chennai- 601 302. ..Petitioner

¶5

Vs.

¶6

The Principal Secretary/ Commissioner of Land Reforms, Office of the Director of Urban Land Ceiling & Urban Land Tax,Chepauk, Chennai- 600 005.

¶7

The Assistant Commissioner/ Competent Authority, Urban Land Tax, Alandur, Chennai- 600 088. .. Respondents

¶8

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ to call for the entire records relating to the impugned order dated 05.02.2009 made in R.C.No.8088/2006/G2 passed by the first respondent herein.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr. A. Ramu For Respondents : Mr. J. Ramesh, Addl.Govt.Pleader

¶10

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's lands were acquired under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 in the year 1987. Though the possession was not taken in the manner known to law, however, the said Act was repealed on 16.06.1999 by Repeal Act 20 of 1999. Considering the position that the respondent passed order stating that the entire Urban Land proceedings are abated. In view of the amendment Act without giving any opportunity, the other officer who subsequently occupied the posts of the first respondent has cancelled the earlier order. Challenging the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ same, the present Writ Petition is filed.

¶11

Heard Mr. A. Ramu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.J.Ramesh, Additional Government Pleader, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶12

Both the counsel agreed that the impugned order was passed without giving any opportunity to the petitioner. In view of the above violation of the principles of natural justice, I am inclined to set aside the impugned order passed by the Officer, accordingly impugned order is set aside and liberty is granted to the respondent to proceed the matter in accordance with law after following the procedure contemplated under the Act and principles of natural justice. Writ Petition is allowed in the above terms. No costs.

¶13

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CO) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To

¶14