Kunchikrishnan Vs. District Forest Officer of Nilgiris South Division

Kunchikrishnan vs District Forest Officer of Nilgiris South Division

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Aug 01, 2013

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1167391

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1167391
Court: Chennai High Court
Judge: M.Jaichandren
Decided On: Aug 01, 2013
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Kunchikrishnan

Respondent

District Forest Officer of Nilgiris South Division

Excerpt

.....officer, nilgiris south division, ooty. 2.the forest range officer, naduvattam, the nilgiris. .. respondents prayer: writ petition is filed under article 226 of the constitution of india, praying for a writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records of impugned order dated 8.3.2011 made in c.no.10253/ 2008/d2 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same and directing the respondents or their subordinates not to disturb the petitioners in using the mud road which is leading from udhagamandalam to gudalur main road which is only access to reach the petitioners land comprised in survey nos.46b/ 1a1/ a3 to an extent of 275 acres of o'vally village in gudalur taluk, the nilgiris district. for petitioners : mr.k.a.ramakrishnan for respondents : mr.m.hidayathullahkhan govt. advocate [forest]. ----- order heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.2. though the prayer is for a larger relief, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners had submitted that it would suffice, if the civil miscellaneous appeal, in c.m.a.no.36 of 2009, pending on the file of the district court, nilgiris, is directed to be disposed of, on merits and in accordance with law, within a specified period.3. learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has no objection for this court passing such an order.4. in view of the above, without going into the merits of the present case, the district court, nilgiris, is directed to dispose of the civil miscellaneous appeal, in c.m.a.no.36 of 2009, said to be pending on its file, on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.5. accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, with the above directions. no costs. m.p.no.1 of 2011 is closed. gs to 1.the district forest officer, nilgiris south division, ooty. 2.the forest range officer, naduvattam, the nilgiris.3. the district court, nilgiris.

Full Judgment

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated:

01. 08.2013 Coram: The Honourable Mr.Justice M.Jaichandren Writ Petition No.20539 of 2011 1.Kunchikrishnan 2.Narayana Kurup 3.Padmavathy .. Petitioners vs. 1.The District Forest Officer, Nilgiris South Division, Ooty. 2.The Forest Range Officer, Naduvattam, The Nilgiris. .. Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records of Impugned Order dated 8.3.2011 made in C.No.10253/ 2008/D2 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same and directing the respondents or their subordinates not to disturb the petitioners in using the mud road which is leading from Udhagamandalam to Gudalur Main Road which is only access to reach the petitioners land comprised in Survey Nos.46B/ 1A1/ A3 to an extent of 275 acres of O'Vally Village in Gudalur Taluk, the Nilgiris District. For petitioners : Mr.K.A.Ramakrishnan For respondents : Mr.M.Hidayathullahkhan Govt. Advocate [Forest]. ----- ORDER

Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. Though the prayer is for a larger relief, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners had submitted that it would suffice, if the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, in C.M.A.No.36 of 2009, pending on the file of the District Court, Nilgiris, is directed to be disposed of, on merits and in accordance with law, within a specified period.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has no objection for this Court passing such an order.

4. In view of the above, without going into the merits of the present case, the District Court, Nilgiris, is directed to dispose of the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, in C.M.A.No.36 of 2009, said to be pending on its file, on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.

5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of, with the above directions. No costs. M.P.No.1 of 2011 is closed. gs To 1.The District Forest Officer, Nilgiris South Division, Ooty. 2.The Forest Range Officer, Naduvattam, The Nilgiris.

3. The District Court, Nilgiris.

Same Court & Year Chennai · 2013 Same Parties Kunchikrishnan vs District Forest Officer of Nilgiris South D... Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge M.Jaichandren