Dismissed

The Secretary to Government v. G.Dhandapani

Madras HC7 Dec 2023WA/1694/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Madras dismissed the Writ Appeal filed by the State. The Court held that the earlier order in a connected writ petition had set aside the acquisition notification under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 in its entirety, not partially.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs; the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

The Secretary to Government Vs G.Dhandapani — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

WA No.1694 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 07.12.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

¶8

WA No.1694 of 2021 and CMP No.10786 of 2021

¶9

The Secretary to Government,

¶10

Adi Dravida and Tribal Welfare Department, Secretariat,

¶11

Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.

¶12

The District Collector, Coimbatore District, Coimbatore 641 018.

¶13

The Special Tahsildar,

¶14

Land Acquisition, Harijan Welfare, Collectorate, Coimbatore.

¶15

.. Appellants

¶16

-vs-

¶17

G.Dhandapani

¶18

K.D.Saroja 3. D.Bagya Venkatasubramanian 4. D.Madhanagopal

¶19

.. Respondents

¶20

Prayer: Writ appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 13.11.2019 passed in W.P.No.22040 of 2013.

¶21

Page 1 of 5

¶22

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

¶23

WA No.1694 of 2021

¶24

For the Appellants : Mr.K.Karthik Jagannath Govt. Advocate For the Respondents : M/s.R.Revathi * * * * *

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

(Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶27

We have heard Mr.K.Karthik Jagannath, learned Government Advocate, for the appellants and M/s.R.Revathi, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶28

The present respondents/writ petitioners filed the writ petition challenging the letter dated 04.07.2013 of the first appellant herein. The respondents/petitioners sought directions against the appellants to hand over the remaining lands measuring 1.59 acres in S.No.517/2, Uppilipalayam Village, on removing the structure therein to the writ petitioners. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition quashing the proceedings dated 04.07.2013. Aggrieved thereby, the State has filed the present appeal.

¶29

Page 2 of 5

¶30

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

¶31

WA No.1694 of 2021

¶32

The learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellants submits that the notification under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 was quashed in W.P.No.2593 of 1997 under order dated 02.04.2004 only to an extent of land in S.No.512/2 and not in respect of land bearing S.No.517/2. It is further submitted that the acquisition has been undertaken long back, as such, at a later stage, the respondents/ petitioners could not have moved the Court. It is further submitted that the possession is also handed over to the Coimbatore Municipal Corporation pursuant to the acquisition.

¶33

The contention of the State that in an earlier writ petition bearing W.P.No.2593 of 1997, the Court only set aside the notification qua S.No.512/2 under its judgment and order dated 02.04.2004 is not borne out from the facts. The learned Single Judge has referred to the order dated 02.04.2004 passed by the Court in W.P.No.2593 of 1997. The said order does not restrict the notification under Section 4 to one particular land. The original writ petitioners have also placed on record a copy of the order dated 02.04.2004 in

¶34

Page 3 of 5

¶35

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

¶36

WA No.1694 of 2021

¶37

W.P.No.2593 of 1997. On perusal of the order, it is manifest that the notification under Section 4 of the Act is set aside in its entirety and not in part.

¶38

In light of the above, we do not find any error committed by

¶39

the learned Single Judge while passing the impugned order.

¶40

The writ appeal as such is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶41

(S.V.G., CJ.) (D.B.C., J.) 07.12.2023 Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No

¶42

sra

¶43

Page 4 of 5

¶44

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

¶45

WA No.1694 of 2021

¶46

THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.

(sra)

WA No.1694 of 2021

07.12.2023

Page 5 of 5

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

The Secretary to Government v. G.Dhandapani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Secretary to Government v. G.Dhandapani

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

Globecast Steel Limited Vs the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board

The Project Director Vs M.Kuzhanthavel

N.S.Haribabu Vs The District Collector

M.Sathish Vs The District Collector

R.Surendar Vs The Sub Collector

B.Sekar Vs Chief Secretary