Follow:
- Next story 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.
- Previous story [7/12, 08:20] Sekarreporter: https://youtu.be/f-ghPej_BNc [7/12, 08:20] Sekarreporter: [7/12, 08:17] Chandrasekar Mhc Advt: *சந்துரு சட்ட பயிற்சிப் பட்டறை*இணையதள கல்வி* *நீதித்துறை தேர்வாளர்கள்/ வழக்கறிஞர்கள்/ சட்ட மாணவர்கள்* பாடம்: *இ.த.ச. 1860* *தலைப்பு*அத்தியாயம்XVI* *நாள்*: 12 /7/ 2021 *நேரம்*: *6:45 PM to 8:30PM* தொடர்பு: 7339650446 [7/12, 08:17] Chandrasekar Mhc Advt: *CHANDRU LAW ACADEMY* inviting you to *Online coaching* for *APP/JUDICIAL EXAMINATION/MAGISTRATE* *SUBJECT* : *IPC,1860* *TITLE* – *CHAPTER XV* *CHAPTER XVI*,(continuation) Date: 12/7/ 2021 TIMING: 💥 6:45-8:30pm Contact:7339650446 [7/12, 08:17] Sekarreporter: 💐
Recent Posts
- PLAINT LIFELINE OF LITIGATION
- DURAIVAIYAPURI Mhc Advt: WHETHER THE SECOND APPEAL UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC IS MAINTAINABLE FROM THE APPELLAT’S COURT DECREE OF REVERSING THE REJECTION OF PLAINT DECREE:-
- The Supreme Court on Friday reserved its judgment on an appeal challenging the Madras High Court’s decision that downloading and possessing child pornography is not a criminal offence.
- Minister sekar babu pa case full order / mhc/ Learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 submits that the third respondent is not on election duty and if the third respondent, being a government servant, engages in acts which are not in consonance with the Tamil Nadu Government Servants’ Conduct Rules, 1973, then it is for the employer to take action. He further submits that respondents 1 and 2 would take necessaryaction on the basis of the complaint received from the petitioner.In view of the said statement, the writ petition is disposed of.There shall be no order as to costs.(S.V.G., CJ.) (J.S.N.P., J.)18.04.2024Index : Yes/NoNeutral Citation : Yes/NosasiTo:1.The Election Commissioner,Election Commission of India, Nivachan Bhavan, New Delhi.2.The Chief Electoral Officer,Government of Tamilnadu,Secretariat,Chennai-600 009. THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICEAND J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD,J.(sasi)
- Tn medium qouta case wp allowed full order of THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
More
Recent Posts
- PLAINT LIFELINE OF LITIGATION
- DURAIVAIYAPURI Mhc Advt: WHETHER THE SECOND APPEAL UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC IS MAINTAINABLE FROM THE APPELLAT’S COURT DECREE OF REVERSING THE REJECTION OF PLAINT DECREE:-
- The Supreme Court on Friday reserved its judgment on an appeal challenging the Madras High Court’s decision that downloading and possessing child pornography is not a criminal offence.
- Minister sekar babu pa case full order / mhc/ Learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 submits that the third respondent is not on election duty and if the third respondent, being a government servant, engages in acts which are not in consonance with the Tamil Nadu Government Servants’ Conduct Rules, 1973, then it is for the employer to take action. He further submits that respondents 1 and 2 would take necessaryaction on the basis of the complaint received from the petitioner.In view of the said statement, the writ petition is disposed of.There shall be no order as to costs.(S.V.G., CJ.) (J.S.N.P., J.)18.04.2024Index : Yes/NoNeutral Citation : Yes/NosasiTo:1.The Election Commissioner,Election Commission of India, Nivachan Bhavan, New Delhi.2.The Chief Electoral Officer,Government of Tamilnadu,Secretariat,Chennai-600 009. THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICEAND J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD,J.(sasi)
- Tn medium qouta case wp allowed full order of THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY