MUTHULAKSHMI AND ELEVEN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Honourable Chief Justice: this writ appeal has been filed against the impugned order dated 29-6-2000 in W. P. No. 10704 of 2000.

(2.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records. It appears that the writ-petitioners/appellants have purported to have purchased the property in question after the land acquisition proceedings were over and the land already stood vested in the Government under Sec. 16 of the Land Acquisition Act. Hence, obviously the so-called purchase by the writ-petitioners/appellants was not a purchase at all because a person can only purchase a property from the one who is the owner of the property. When the erstwhile owner ceases to be the owner of the property then the subsequent purchase from him is meaningless. The writ petition was, therefore, rightly dismissed by the learned single Judge. The writ appeal has no merits and, therefore, the same is dismissed. No costs. Connected C. M. P. No. 17335 of 2000 is closed.