Disposed

The Special Tahsildar v. Thamodaran

Madras HC20 Aug 2020CMP/8578/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Civil Miscellaneous Petitions filed by the Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition Officer, seeking to condone a 95-day delay in representing civil appeals admitted before the Special Sub Judge. The court, finding the delay caused by a clerical mix-up of papers rather than negligence, condoned the delay and disposed of the petitions.

What did the court decide?

The delay in representing the appeals is condoned and the Civil Miscellaneous Petitions are disposed of accordingly.

The Special Tahsildar Vs Thamodaran — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

CMP.Nos.8578 & 8579 of 2020 in AS.(SR).Nos. 61458 & 61462 of 2019

¶2

CMP.Nos.8578 & 8579 of 2020 in AS.(SR).Nos. 61458 & 61462 of 2019

¶3

R.MAHADEVAN, J.

¶4

Today, These matters are taken up by this Court through Video Conferencing, Microsoft Teams App, on account of the pandemic COVID-19.

¶5

2.These Civil Miscellaneous Petitions have been filed by the petitioner /

¶6

Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition Officer, Tirupattur, seeking to condone the

¶7

delay of 95 days in representing the above Appeal Suits.

¶8

3.The challenge made in the appeals is to the order dated 30.03.2016

¶9

passed by the learned Special Sub Judge, Vellore, in L.A.O.P.Nos.856 of 2013 and 66 of 2014 respectively.

¶10

4.It is stated by the petitioner/Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition Officer,

¶11

Tirupattur that the appeals were filed on 30.04.2019 with applications to condone the delay and the same were returned for compliance of certain defects.

¶12

Since the case papers were mixed up with some other bundles in the Government

¶13

Pleader office, the same could not be represented within the time stipulated by

¶14

1/3 http://www.judis.nic.in

¶15

CMP.Nos.8578 & 8579 of 2020 in AS.(SR).Nos. 61458 & 61462 of 2019

¶16

the Registry. After tracing out the papers, the appeals were represented with a delay of 95 days and hence, the delay occasioned is neither wilful nor wanton, but only due to the said reason.

¶17

5.Heard Mr.J.Balagopal, learned Special Government Pleader (AS)

¶18

appearing for the petitioner/appellant, who reiterated the reasons stated in the affidavits filed in support of these petitions.

¶19

6.Considering the reasons stated in the affidavits filed in support of these

¶20

petitions and being satisfied with the same, the delay in representing the Appeals is condoned and these CMPs are ordered accordingly.

¶21

20.08.2020

¶22

Note::

¶23

Registry is directed to number the condone delay petition, if the same is otherwise in order, and list the same for hearing on 28.08.2020.

¶24

¶25

2/3 http://www.judis.nic.in

¶26

CMP.Nos.8578 & 8579 of 2020 in AS.(SR).Nos. 61458 & 61462 of 2019

¶27

R.MAHADEVAN, J.

¶28

¶29

CMP.Nos.8578 & 8579 of 2020
in
AS.(SR).Nos. 61458 & 61462 of 2019
20.08.2020

¶30

3/3 http://www.judis.nic.in

The Special Tahsildar v. Thamodaran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Special Tahsildar v. Thamodaran

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

Marappan Vs Palanathal

P.Radhakrishnan Vs Balasundaram

A. Sivasubramaniam Vs K. Palanivelu

R.Muthuselvam Vs v.Mahalakshmi

R.Nanjundasami Vs Prema Leela

N.K.Kuberendran Naidu Vs N.K.Jayalakshmi