REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

V.DORAISWAMI PILLAI Appellant

V/S

GOVERNMENT OF T.N. Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

MUTHU GOUNDER V. GOVERNMENT OF MADRAS [REFERRED TO]
MARIMUTHAMMAL V. STATE OF MADRAS [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA REDDY V. COLLECTOR,MAHABOOBNAGAR [REFERRED TO]
A.DEVASTHANAM V. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
VALJIBHAI MULJIBHAI SONEJI ASHRS TEXTILE WORKS VS. STATE OF BOMBAY GUJARAT:STATE OF BOMBAY GUJARAT [REFERRED TO]
RAJA ANAND BRAHMA SHAH VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
RATILAL SHAKARABHAI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED TO]
JAGE RAM VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
NARAYAN GOVIND GAVATE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA:NARAYAN GOVIND GAVATE [REFERRED TO]
DORA PHALAULI VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF PUNJAB VS. GURDIAL SINGH [REFERRED TO]
DEEPAK PAHWA VS. LT GOVERNOR OF DELHI [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH MEERUT DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEERUT VS. PISTA DEVI:PISTA DEVI [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. RADHEY SHYAM NIGAM :KASHMIR SINGH :KASHMIR SINGH [REFERRED TO]
KASIREDDY PAPAIAH DIED VS. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
CHINTHALACHERUVU CHENCHAMMA VS. DISTRICT COLLECTOR NELORE [REFERRED TO]
NAMALA PITCHAIAH VS. DISTRICT COLLECTOR GUNTUR [REFERRED TO]
PERIATHAMBI MUDALIAR VS. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR L A PLANNING SCHEME COIMBATORE AND [REFERRED TO]
SK ABDUL HAMID VS. LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR BALASORE [REFERRED TO]
CHINNAMMA VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]
YESHO NATHU MAHAJAN VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
MOTIYAN VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
HARIPADA MANDAL VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
A. SATYANARAYANA RAO VS. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KARIMNAGAR [REFERRED TO]
NARAYAN GOVIND GAVATE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The legal representative of the petitioner in W.P. No. 8086 of 1982 is the appellants, and the three respondents therein are the respondents herein.

(2.) The Writ Petition was filed to quash the notice issued on 7-6-1982 under Ss.9(3) and 10 of Land Acquisition Act in respect of the lands situated in R.S. Nos. 20/2, 20/3, 20/4 and 20/5 of an extent of 4.05 acres in Koilpattu Village. It is claimed that at no point of time prior to the impugned notice, there was any notice served on the owner of the land or any intimation given in any other manner by public announcement, etc. in the village. On 29-6-1982 the writ petitioner appeared before the third respondent and submitted that the lands should not (be?) acquired, and in spite of it, in or about first week of Aug., 1982, a notice under S.12(2) was served determining the compensation at Rs. 13,972.50. It was learnt that the acquisition was for providing house sites for Adi Dravidas. By invoking urgency provisions under S.17(4) of the Act valuable opportunity of putting forth the objections to S.5-A enquiry had been deprived unjustly and illegally in a kind of acquisition proceedings in which there could be no urgency involved. It being a colourable exercise of power, and under the facts and circumstances of the case, no valid ground having been made out to dispense with the requirements of S.5-A enquiry, the writ petition had been filed for the reliefs claimed therein.

(3.) Learned Judge in dismissing the writ petition, held that the Collector had given sufficient reasons for invoking urgency provisions of the Act, and that publication had been made in convenient plAccs and that private need of an owner of land will have to give way to public need.

Click here to view full judgment.

V DORAISWAMI PILLAI Vs. GOVERNMENT OF T N

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address