Disposed

C.Govindaraju v. State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC2 Aug 2019WP/19005/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a Writ Petition filed under Article 226 seeking a Mandamus to direct the Tamil Nadu Housing Board to issue a No Objection Certificate for the petitioner's land. The Court directed respondents to consider the petitioner's representation.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents 3 and 4 to consider the petitioner's representation to issue NOC if land is not under acquisition proceedings.

C.Govindaraju Vs State of Tamil Nadu — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 02.08.2019

¶2

CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

¶4

Writ Petition No.19005 of 2019

¶5

C.Govindaraju ...Petitioner

¶6

¶7

1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department, Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009.

¶8

2.Special Tahsidar(Land Acquisition) Housing Scheme-1, Tadabath, Coimbatore-12.

¶9

3.The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Nandanam, Chennai-600 035.

¶10

4.The Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Coimbatore Housing Division, Tadabath, Coimbatore-12. ... Respondents

¶11

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent to issue No Objection Certificate to the respondents 3 and 4, which is a pre-condition to obtain planning permission in respect of the petitioner's land comprised in S.F.No.82/1, present T.S.No.161/1B, Ward No.23, Block No.13, measuring an extent of 21 cents situate in Ganapathy Village, Coimbatore, within a time frame.

¶12

The petitioner herein being the land owner has sought for No Objection Certificate from the Housing Board since the earlier acquisition proceedings have been dropped by the Housing Board. However, the respondents 3 and 4 have not so far considered the

¶13

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

¶14

representation of the petitioner herein. Hence, the present writ petition is filed.

¶15

The learned Standing counsel appearing for the Housing Board would submit that the acquisition proceedings for development of housing scheme was not dropped in entirety, only portion of the area was dropped out from the scheme. The Housing Board has to verify as to whether the land in question is still under the acquisition proceedings or not. The learned Standing counsel would further submit that if the land of the petitioner does not cover under the acquisition proceedings, necessary orders will be passed. He seeks eight weeks time to pass orders on the representation of the petitioner herein with regard to issuance of NOC.

¶16

Recording the same, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents 3 and 4 to consider the representation of the petitioner herein to issue NOC to the petitioner's land if it does not covered under the acquisition proceedings. No costs.

¶17

Sd/Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. The Secretary, State of Tamil Nadu, Housing and Urban Development Department, Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009. 2. The Special Tahsidar(Land Acquisition) Housing Scheme-1, Tadabath, Coimbatore-12.

¶18

3.The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Nandanam, Chennai-600 035.

¶19

4.The Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Coimbatore Housing Division, Tadabath, Coimbatore-12. +2cc to M/s.Sampath Kumar & Associates, Sr.No.66420 +1 cc to Dr.R.Gouri,Advocate Sr.No.66675 +1 cc to The Government Pleader Sr.No.66733 AKM/ 30.08.19/2P-9C / Writ Petition No.19005 of 2019

¶20

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

C.Govindaraju v. State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Govindaraju v. State of Tamil Nadu

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

Ranganayaki Vs The Member Secretary

K.P.Velu, Vs The Election Commissioner

V.Revathi, Vs The Secretary

P.Shanmugham Vs Superintending Engineer

E.Boopalan Vs The Regional Transport Officer

M.Mohanraj Vs The Executive Engineer