Dismissed

Girija Janarthanan v. The Government of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC25 Oct 2021WP/33478/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 challenging land acquisition proceedings, seeking a declaration of lapsed acquisition under the 2013 Act. On two hearing dates, no representation was received from the petitioner. The court directed dismissal and finally dismissed the petition for non-prosecution without costs.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed for non-prosecution. No costs awarded to respondents.

Girija Janarthanan Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 25.10.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN

¶5

W.P.NO. 33478 OF 2019

Girija Janarthanan

... Petitioner

Versus

The Gevernment of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department, Chennai - 600 009.

¶10

The Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Represented by its Managing Director, Nandanam, Chennai - 600 035.

¶11

... Respondents

¶12

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Declaration, directing the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 commencing with Section 4(1) Notification issued in G.O.(Ms)No.46, Housing an Urban Development, dated 05.02.1992 and Section 6 Declaration issued in G.O.(Ms).No.297, Housing and Urban Development dated 15.04.1993 and published at page No.14 of Supplement to Part II, Section 2 of Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 26.02.1992 and page 1&2 of Extraordinary issue of Part II, Section 2 of Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 16.04.1993 respectively in respect of the land of the petitioner comprised in Survey No.405/1, situated at Vilankurichi Village, Coimbatore, measuring an extent of 55 cents as lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, (Central Act No.XXX of 2013).

¶13

For Petitioner : No Appearance For Respondents : Mr.V.Veluchamy (R1)

¶14

: Dr.R.Gowri (R2) Standing Counsel (TNHB)

¶15

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

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

When the case was taken up for hearing on 22.10.2021, there was no representation for the petitioner. Hence, the matter was directed to be posted today i.e, on 25.10.2021, under the caption “for dismissal”. Even today, there is no representation for the petitioner either in person or through his learned counsel. Therefore, this writ petition is dismissed for nonprosecution. No costs.

¶18

Sd/-

¶19

Assistant Registrar(CS-VIII)

¶20

//True Copy//

¶21

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶22

msm

¶23

¶24