Dismissed

R.Easwaramoorthy Gounder v. the Land Reforms Commissioner

Madras HC17 Jul 2019WP/21140/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the revisional authority's order dismissing a petition under the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (FLC) Act. The court found no error in the lower authorities' decision and granted liberty to file an alternative application.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to file appropriate application before the concerned authority.

R.Easwaramoorthy Gounder Vs the Land Reforms Commissioner — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED :20.08.2019

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

W.P.No..21140 of 2004

¶7

R. Easwaramoorthy Gounder,

¶8

..Petitioner
vs
.. Respondents

¶9

The Land Reforms Commissoner, Chepauk, Chennai- 600 005.

¶10

The Assistant Commissioner,
Land Reforms, Erode

¶11

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to call for the record relating to the proceedings of the first respondent dated 22.12.2000 made in D.1/R.P.2.2000/L.Ref. And quash the same.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr. V. Elangovan For Respondents : Mr. J. Ramesh, AGP

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner challenged the order dated 22.12.2000 wherein the Revisional Authority namely

¶15

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶16

¶17

the Land Commissioner, Chepauk dismissed the Revision Petition filed under Section 82 of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (FLC) Act, 1961 confirming the Modification of Notification, dated 8.3.2000.

¶18

The learned counsel further submitted that without going into merits of

¶19

the case, the decision of the Original Authority as well as Revisional authority, the petitioner may be permitted to file an application for providing the alternative

¶20

land equivalent to the land already declared as surplus.

¶21

On perusal of the entire records, I do not find any error in the order

¶22

passed by the Appellate authority as well as Original Authority.

¶23

In view of the limited request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am inclined to grant liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate application before the concerned authority. Hence, this Writ Petition is dismissed

¶24

with the above observation. No costs.

¶25

20.08.2019

¶26

Index:Yes / No Internet: Yes / No Speaking / Non-Speaking order

¶27

mrn

¶28

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶29

¶30

¶31

The Land Reforms Commissoner, Chepauk, Chennai- 600 005.

¶32

The Assistant Commissioner, Land Reforms, Erode

¶33

http://www.judis.nic.in

M.DHANDAPANI, J.,

mrn

W.P.No..21140 of 2004

¶38

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶39

¶40

20.08.2019

¶41

http://www.judis.nic.in

R.Easwaramoorthy Gounder v. the Land Reforms Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Easwaramoorthy Gounder v. the Land Reforms Commissioner

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

T.Swaminathan, Vs the Govt.of Tn Rep by Its

N.Ramasamy Gounder Vs the Competnt Auhority

S.Lakshmipathy Vs the Chairman and Managing

Dr Rajah Muthiah Chettiar Vs State of Tamilnadu Rep. by

M.Mythili Vs K.Ganesan

C.S.I. Girls Primary School Vs the District Elementary