[12/28, 09:52] Sekarreporter1: Mumbai: E-court option along with physical hearing to be the way ahead, says high court judge – http://toi.in/qeWG_Z/a31gj Use the TOI app to get Breaking news and headlines. Download now: https://timesofindia.onelink.me/efRt/ASmwebshare [12/28, 09:57] Sekarreporter1: ☘️
[12/28, 09:52] Sekarreporter1: Mumbai: E-court option along with physical hearing to be the way ahead, says high court judge – http://toi.in/qeWG_Z/a31gj
Use the TOI app to get Breaking news and headlines. Download now:
https://timesofindia.onelink.me/efRt/ASmwebshare
[12/28, 09:57] Sekarreporter1: ☘️
![Full news THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH W.P.(MD)No.2660 of 2014 and M.P.(MD) Nos.1 & 2 of 2015 (Through Video Conference) Tmt.R.Rajathi – On the question whether the land once vested in the Government could be divested, the Supreme Court held in para 26 of the report in V. Chandrasekaran v.Administrative Officer [2012-5-L.W. 724; (2012) 12 SCC 133], that a land once acquired cannot be restored to the owners, even if it is not used for the purpose for which it was acquired or for any other purpose either. 123. Therefore, it is clear that the original land owners do not acquire a right merely because the acquired land is not used for the purpose for which it was acquired or for any other purpose either. This is the general rule. The exception to this rule is in Section 48-B. But this exception also, as we have pointed out earlier, does not apply to all types of cases where the acquired land is not used for the purpose for which it was acquired or for any other purpose. The exception under Section 48-B applies only to cases where the acquired land is not at all required either for the purpose for which it was acquired or for any other purpose.” 27. In view of the above discussion, this Court does not find any legal right for the petitioner to seek for reconveyance of the land, more particularly, when the State has already initiated steps to use the lands for public purpose for issuing ‘House Site Patta’ to persons belonging to Backward Community (B.C) and Most Backward Community (M.B.C.) and hence, this Court cannot issue a Mandamus and accordingly, the present Writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.](https://sekarreporter.com/wp-content/themes/hueman/assets/front/img/thumb-medium-empty.png)