JOTHILAKSHMI ALIAS JOTHI Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Writ Petition, there are ten petitioners. To dispose of the matter, it is necessary to list out the names of those ten petitioners. First petitioner is Jothilakshmi alias Jothi, wife of A.Ganesan; second petitioner G.Balasubramanian is the son of first petitioner and A.Ganesan; third petitioner Mahadevi is their daughter. All the above three petitioners are said to have given Power of Attorney in favour of one Umar Rahmattullah, by a Power of Attorney Deed, dated 11.04.2003. It appears, the said Power of Attorney, representing his principal, has entered into transactions with petitioners 4 to 10, namely, P.Shanmugam, O.Muthu, M.Mary, N.Sriram, N.Sadasivam, Dharmalingam and N.Gunalan. So far as petitioners 4 to 10 are concerned, they have absolutely no locus standi to challenge the land acquisition proceedings, which attained finality on issuance of Declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on 19.03.1996. Therefore, the prayer sought for by petitioners 4 to 10 in this Writ Petition is dismissed. This leaves us with petitioners 1 to 3. In the interregnum, an application has been filed in M.P.No.1 of 2014, by petitioners 1 to 3 to revoke the vakalat given by them to Mr.D.Murugan and to engage M/s.M.Ravichandran and M.Ashok.

(2.) On the last hearing date i.e., 09.03.2016, parties appeared and another counsel represented Mr.M.Ravichandran and made submissions. This Court was of the view that the said counsel was representing the case on behalf of Mr.M.Ravichandran. Today, another counsel is representing the case, stating that the earlier counsel is not in station and, after some questioning by the Court, it is admitted that the whereabouts of M/s.M.Ravichandran and M.Ashok are not known to the present counsel, who is representing the case. That sorry state of affairs reflect very badly on the Members of the Bar. In fact, on the earlier occasion, it was brought to the notice of this Court that petitioners 1 to 3 were attempting to grab the land of the Housing Board. Therefore, the Court directed the presence of all parties and, today, all of them are present in the Court.

(3.) It is rather unfortunate that without knowing the whereabouts of the counsel, who filed M.P.No.1 of 2014, another counsel is making representation on his behalf. Today, Mr.M.Ravichandran is not present and, for the facts set out in the preceding paragraphs and having regard to the conduct of the parties, this Court is not inclined to entertain M.P.No.1 of 2014, which is, accordingly, dismissed.