STATE OF TAMIL NADU Vs. P SIVALINGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondents in the writ petition have filed the present writ appeal against the order of the learned Judge dated 9.4.2007, by which the learned Judge has directed the appellants to confer the benefits given to the parties before the Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu & another v. P. Krishnamurthy & Others, [2006] 4 SCC 517 to the respondent, by granting him lease.

(2.) IT is the admitted case of the parties that in respect of the lands measuring an extent of 11.36.5 Hectares comprised in S.F.Nos.26, 32 and 33 situated in Ottampatti Village, and 5.50.0 Hectares and 6.85.5 Hectares comprised in Survey Nos.134/Part-1 and 134/Part-2 respectively, situated in Tiruvanapatti Village, in Uthangiri Taluk, Krishnagiri District, the respondent was granted lease and the lease came to be terminated due to the advent of G.O.Ms.No.95, Industries Department, dated 1.10.2003, by which the leasing operations in the Government lands have been taken over by the Government.

(3.) THE contention of the learned Special Government Pleader for the appellants is that the judgment of the Supreme Court, referred supra, especially paragraph 36, cannot be treated as a judgment in rem and therefore, the finding given by the learned Judge, taking the same as a judgment in rem and giving the benefit to the respondent is not valid in law. He would also rely upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Satrucharla Vijaya Rama Raju v. Nimmaka Jaya Raju & Others, [2006] 1 SCC 212 to substantiate his contention that the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu & another v. P.Krishnamurthy & Others, referred supra, cannot be treated as a judgment in rem at all.