Disposed

The Special Tahsildar v. Jegannatha Rao

Madras HC9 Sept 2020CMP/9501/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court condoned a delay of 596 days in filing Civil Appeal Suits by the Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition Officer, citing administrative reasons such as election work and monsoon disaster management. The Court was satisfied with the reasons and the respondents' lack of objection, proceeding to list the matters for disposal.

What did the court decide?

The delay of 596 days in filing the appeals was condoned and the CMPs were disposed of accordingly.

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

¶1

CMP.Nos. 9501, 9505, 9506, 9507, 9508, 9510, 9511, 9517, 9519, 9520, 9522, 9525 & 9529 of 2020 in AS.(SR).Nos. 127416, 127413, 127406, 127410, 127404, 127411, 127415, 127405, 127414, 127407, 127412, 127409 & 127408 of 2019

¶2

CMP.Nos. 9501, 9505, 9506, 9507, 9508, 9510, 9511, 9517, 9519, 9520, 9522, 9525 & 9529 of 2020

¶3

in AS.(SR).Nos. 127416, 127413, 127406, 127410, 127404, 127411, 127415, 127405, 127414, 127407, 127412, 127409 & 127408 of 2019

¶4

R.MAHADEVAN, J.

¶5

Today, these matters are taken up by this Court through Video

¶6

Conferencing, on account of the pandemic COVID-19.

¶7

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

¶8

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

¶9

delay of 596 days in filing the above Appeal Suits.

¶10

3.The challenge made in the appeals is to the order dated 08.11.2017

¶11

passed by the learned Special Sub Judge, Vellore, in L.A.O.P.Nos.832, 607, 768,

¶12

633, 752, 631, 836, 807, 557, 766, 627, 635 & 640 of 2013.

¶13

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

¶14

Officer, Tirupattur, in the condone delay petitions that her predecessors did not

¶15

file appeals as against the orders passed by the Special Sub Court, Vellore in

¶16

1/4

¶17

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶18

¶19

LAOP cases due to administrative reasons, such as, 2016 Assembly election

¶20

related work spanning over eight months, North East to South West Monsoon Disaster Management activities and absence of regular charge of Sub-Collector for a period of over six months. After assuming office, the petitioner has taken steps to file the appeals and accordingly, preferred the present appeals with a delay of 596 days. Hence, the delay occasioned in preferring the appeals is

¶21

neither wilful nor wanton, but only due to the said administrative reasons.

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

6.Ms.S.S.Meenakumari, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has

¶25

no objection for condoning the delay in filing the appeals. She has also sent a memo dated 04.09.2020 to that effect to the Registry through e-mail. Further, she appealed to this Court to list these appeals for final disposal at an early date, as the respondents have not been paid compensation till date, as awarded by the Court below.

¶26

2/4 http://www.judis.nic.in

¶27

¶28

7.Considering the reasons stated in the affidavits filed in support of the

¶29

above petitions and being satisfied with the same, apart from recording the no objection expressed by the learned counsel for the respondents, the delay in filing these Appeals is condoned and these CMPs are ordered accordingly.

¶30

09.09.2020
mtl

¶31

Note::

¶32

Registry is directed to number the condone delay petitions, if the same are otherwise in order, and list the same for hearing on 14.09.2020.

¶33

3/4 http://www.judis.nic.in

R.MAHADEVAN, J.

mtl

MP.Nos. 9501, 9505, 9506, 9507, 9508, 9510, 9511, 9517, 9519, 9520, 9522,
9525 & 9529 of 2020
in
AS.(SR).Nos. 127416, 127413, 127406, 127410, 127404, 127411, 127415,
127405, 127414, 127407, 127412, 127409 & 127408 of 2019
09.09.2020

¶38

4/4 http://www.judis.nic.in

The Special Tahsildar v. Jegannatha Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Special Tahsildar v. Jegannatha Rao

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

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs (Minor) Thenmozhi

A.Narasimman Vs Sivakumar

Managing Director Vs C.Saradha

The Special Tahsildar Vs Jayamani

The Special Tahsildar Vs Vasanthabai

M/S. United India Insurance Vs M. Dhanapal