Allowed

The Secretary v. The Special Tahsildar No.3

Madras HC23 Dec 2021WP/16042/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Lok Adalat proceeding, the court settled a Writ Petition challenging an impugned reference order. The parties executed a compromise memo, and the court awarded Rs. 1,10,275 to the claimant. The writ petition was allowed, and full court fee was ordered to be refunded.

What did the court decide?

Awarded a sum of Rs. 1,10,275/- and ordered the refund of full court fee. Writ Petition allowed accordingly.

The Secretary Vs The Special Tahsildar No.3 — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT LEGAL SERVICES COMMITTEE, CHENNAI

¶2

LOK ADALAT-I ORGANISED BY THE HIGH COURT LEGAL SERVICES COMMITTEE

¶3

THURSDAY, THE 23^RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2021

¶4

LOK ADALAT AWARD

¶5

(CHAPTER VI AND U/S 21 OF LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITIES ACT, 1987)

¶6

PRESIDED OVER BY

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.RAMAMURTHI (RETD.) AND

MEMBER

MR.R.RAVINDRA BOSE

PRAYER:-

Writ Petition filed for calling for the records of the 1^st respondent pertaining to the impugned reference Ref:A/16/2015 dated 07.01.2015 and quash the same as illegal and contrary to Sec.18 of the Act, 1894.

¶12

The Secretary, Corporate Office, Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited, Neyveli – 607 801.

¶13

The Special Tahsildar No.3, Land Acquisition, Neyveli – 607 802.

¶14

Thillai Govindan ... Respondents

¶15

This case came up for settlement before the Lok Adalat. Both the parties are present. Mr.N.Nithianandam, counsel for the appellant and first and second respondent – party in persons are present.

¶16

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

¶17

TERMS OF SETTLEMENT

¶18

Both parties and counsel present. Both of them have filed Memo of Compromise and the same read over to the claimant and he agreed. The Compromise memo is recorded. The award is passed for a sum of Rs.1,10,275/- and the petitioner had issued the cheque also for the said amount. Memo of Compromise shall form part of the order. Writ Petition is ordered accordingly.

¶19

The full Court fee shall be refunded to the petitioner in the manner provided under Section 69-A of the Tamil Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 and the Court Fees Act, 1870 as provided for under sub Sec.1 of Section 21 r/w 25 of LSA Act 1987 as amended in 1994 and there shall be no demand for additional Court fee.

¶20

Xerox Copy of Memo of Compromise is enclosed.

¶21

The Secretary, Corporate Office, Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited, Neyveli – 607 801. Counsel for the Petitioner

¶22

The Special Tahsildar No.3 Land Acquisition, Neyveli – 607 802. 2. Mr.Thillai Govindan Party in persons

¶23

Judge

¶24

Member

¶25

Sd/Assistant Registrar

¶26

//True Copy//

¶27

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶28

adl

¶29

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

¶30

To:	The parties/Advocate concerned
Copy	To:-
1.	The Special Sub Judge, Cuddalore.
2.	The Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee, Chennai.
3.	The Section Officer, V.R. Section,
	High Court, Madras.
4.	The Section Officer,
	Lok Adalat Section,
	High Court, Madras. (+2 copies)

¶31

W.P.NO.16042 OF 2016

¶32

SSI(CO) PBS/10/01/2022

¶33

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

The Secretary v. The Special Tahsildar No.3

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Secretary v. The Special Tahsildar No.3

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

The Branch Manager Vs Sali W/O Chinnakutti

The Branch Manager Vs Seenivasan

S.Kannan Vs a.S.Saleema

The Secretary Vs Mrs.Rajambal,W/O.Mr.Suseelan

The Secretary Vs The Special Tahsildar No.3

The Secretary, Vs The Special Tahsildar NO.3