Four writ appeals challenging an order dismissing petitions against land acquisition for Air Force Academy and subsequent transfer to DRDO. The High Court found no jurisdictional error in the Single Judge's ruling, upholding that claims were unfounded.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN
WRIT APPEAL Nos. 1101, 1107, 1113 and 1114 of 2016
Common Judgment: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan)
We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents 1 and 2. We have also heard Sri K. Lakshman, learned Assistant Solicitor General for the respondents 3 and 4.
2
2.5 kms x 2 kms to DRDO for ‘ORANGE’ facility. The learned Single Judge took note of award bearing No. E/40/66 dated 29.10.1966 passed by the Collector for the lands, which are now being claimed by the appellant-writ petitioners as belonging to them. The learned Single Judge ultimately held that the claims of the appellant-writ petitioners are not only unfounded, but also are false. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions were dismissed imposing costs on the appellant-writ petitioners.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand closed.
No order as to costs.
_________________________________________
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, CJ
____________________________
V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J
Date: 2nd August, 2018
pnb
3 issues framed by the court
Whether there is any ground to hold the impugned common order of the Single Judge illegal or vitiated by error of jurisdiction regarding the acquisition of land.
Whether the claims of the appellant-writ petitioners for the land are founded given the earlier notification and transfer of management.
Whether the action of the respondents in taking over the land without following due process violates Article 300-A.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Appellant-writ petitioners
Respondents 1 and 2
Respondents 3 and 4
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan
V. Ramasubramanian
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
