Disposed

H.Y.Ahmed Sait v. the Government of Tamilnadu

Madras HC5 Feb 2019WP/4832/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge bench directed the Government of Tamil Nadu to consider a representation regarding unused denotified land and pass orders after giving the milk producers union an opportunity within four months, disposing the writ petition without merits.

What did the court decide?

Directed the first respondent to consider the representation dated 04.10.2012 and pass orders on merits after hearing the third respondent within four months.

H.Y.Ahmed Sait Vs the Government of Tamilnadu — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 05.02.2019

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR

¶5

W.P.No.4832 of 2014

¶6

1.H.Y. Ahmed Sait

¶7

2.Fakheer Mohamed 3.Abdul Rahman Cassim Sait all are represented by their Power Agent

¶8

4.Jaffer Mohamed Sait @ Saad Ahmed Sait ... Petitioners Vs. 1.The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Secretary to Government, Agriculture (MP-1), Fort St.George, Madras – 9.

¶9

2.The Land Acquisition Officer cum Sub Collector, Cunnoor, Ootacamund District.

¶10

3.The Nilgiris District Co-operative Milk Producers Union, Rep. by its General Manager, Ootacamund ... Respondents

¶11

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the 1^st Respondent to denotify the land unused by the 3^rd Respondent, measuring over 5 acres in Sur.No.1106/4A3, 1106/4B1, 1106/4C2.

¶12

For Petitioners : Ms.Sripriya

¶13

for M/s.V.Raghavachari

¶14

For Respondents : Mr.C.Thirumaran for R1 and R2 Special Government Pleader Mr.G.Muniratnam for R3

¶15

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

¶16

ORDER

¶17

According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the prayer in the writ petition for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the 1^st Respondent to denotify the land unused by the 3^rd Respondent, measuring over 5 acres in Sur.No.1106/4A3, 1106/4B1, 1106/4C2. The petitioners made a representation on 04.10.2012 requesting the Government to transfer the extent of 4 to 5 acres of land, which was kept unutilized, unused and denotified from the acquisition proceedings in S.Nos.1106/4A3, 1106/4B1 and 1106/4C2 but, till date no order has been passed on the representation.

¶18

2.The respondents have not chosen to file counter affidavit in the present writ petition from the year 2014. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners has requested that it would suffice, if the first respondent is directed to consider the representation of the petitioners' dated 04.10.2012 and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶19

3.The learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents would submit that the contention of the petitioners are disputed, but however, the first respondent Government is the Competent Authority to pass an order.

¶20

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, this Court without going into the merits of the matter directs the first respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 04.10.2012, on merits and in accordance with law, and pass orders, after giving an opportunity to the third respondent, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶21

5.With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶22

//True Copy//

¶23

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶24

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

¶25

¶26

1.The Secretary to Government, Agriculture (MP-1), Fort St.George, Madras – 9. 2.The Land Acquisition Officer cum Sub Collector, Cunnoor, Ootacamund District.

¶27

+1cc to Mr.V.Raghavachari, Advocate sr.10014
+1cc to Mr.G.Muniratnam, Advocate sr.10302
+1cc to the Government Pleader sr.10246
W.P.No.4832 of 2014
vd[co]
srg 21/03/2019

¶28

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

H.Y.Ahmed Sait v. the Government of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

H.Y.Ahmed Sait v. the Government of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.Kumaresan Vs The Regional Transport Officer

N.Indirani Vs The Principal Secretary

M.Chennakesavan Vs The Commissioner

Mohamed Suhail, Vs the Home Secretary

R. Shanthi Vs the Secretary

Mr.Shabbir Taher Bhai, Vs the Commissioner