Dismissed

R.L.Geetha v. State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC28 Jun 2022WP/23242/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition challenging a land acquisition notification and declaration, the petitioner sought withdrawal of the petition with liberty to pursue compensation by other legal means. The court granted permission for withdrawal and dismissed the petition accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to withdraw the petition with liberty to work out the remedy in the manner known to law regarding compensation.

R.L.Geetha Vs State of Tamil Nadu — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.No.23242 of 2015

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 28.06.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

W.P.No.23242 of 2015 And

M.P.No.1 of 2015

R.L.Geetha

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.State of Tamil Nadu

¶12

Rep. by its Secretary to Government Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Fort St.George,

¶13

Chennai – 600 009.

¶14

2.Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage and Drainage Board, (CMWS & DB), No.46, Greams Road,

¶15

Chennai – 600 006.

¶16

3.The Special Tahsildar (LA) Madras Krishna Water Supply Scheme, Taluk Office Complex, Sriperumbudur, Kancheepuram District.

¶17

... Respondents

¶18

Prayer:

¶19

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the entire records

¶20

1/4

¶21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶22

W.P.No.23242 of 2015

¶23

pertaining to the Section – 4 (1) Notification issued under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 made in G.O.Ms.No.18, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Fort St.George, Chennai, dated 05.01.1989 as published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 12.03.1989 and the consequential Section - 6 declaration, award passed by the third respondent have to be declared as “already

¶24

stand quashed” as per orders of this Hon'ble Court dated 08.02.1993, made in W.P.No.5079 of 1992, consequently direct the respondents to initiate afresh acquisition in respect of the land described in the schedule to the writ petition.

¶25

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Subburaj

¶26

For Respondents : Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan for R1 Special Government Pleader Mr.N.Paul Sunder Singh for R2 and R3 Standing Counsel for CMWSSB

¶27

O R D E R

¶28

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks the

¶29

permission of this Court to withdraw this petition with liberty to the petitioner to work out the remedy in the manner known to law and has also made an endorsement to that effect in the petition.

¶30

2/4

¶31

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶32

W.P.No.23242 of 2015

¶33

2.In view of the above, this writ petition is dismissed as

¶34

withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to work out the remedy in the manner known to law in respect of compensation. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶35

28.06.2022

¶36

pri

¶37

Speaking Order/ Non Speaking Order Index: Yes/ No Internet: Yes/ No

¶38

¶39

1.The Secretary to Government Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶40

2.Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage and Drainage Board, (CMWS & DB), No.46, Greams Road, Chennai – 600 006.

¶41

3.The Special Tahsildar (LA) Madras Krishna Water Supply Scheme, Taluk Office Complex, Sriperumbudur, Kancheepuram District.

¶42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶43

3/4

¶44

W.P.No.23242 of 2015

¶45

M.DHANDAPANI,J. pri

¶46

W.P.No.23242 of 2015 And M.P.No.1 of 2015

¶47

28.06.2022

¶48

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶49

4/4

R.L.Geetha v. State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.L.Geetha v. State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gem Granites Affirm Registered Vs C.Rathinam(died)

C. Rathinam(Deceased), Vs the State of Tamilnadu

A.R. Munuswamy Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

D.Selvakumar, Vs District Revenue Officer

R.Radhakrishnan, Vs The Executive Officer

Mohammed Sadiq Basha@Sadiq Basha Vs Intelligence Officer