P. Moorthy Vs. The State, represented by its Secretary to Government, Revenue Department and Others

P. Moorthy vs The State, represented by its Secretary to Government, Revenue Department and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Madurai Decided Dec 15, 2016

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1186441

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/1186441
Court: Chennai Madurai High Court
Judge: K. Ravichandrabaabu
Decided On: Dec 15, 2016
Case Number: W.P(MD) No. 23990 of 2016
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

P. Moorthy

Respondent

The State, represented by its Secretary to Government, Revenue Department and Others

Excerpt

.....the petitioner's representation, dated 7.12.2016. 2. mr.c.selvaraj, learned special government pleader takes notice for the respondents 1 to 5. 3. by consent of both parties, the main writ petition is taken up for disposal, at the admission stage itself. 4. the grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents 6 and 7 are making hectic attempts to get no objection certificate from the revenue divisional officer, periyakulam, theni district, by making a fresh application, even though the very same official has already rejected such request through his proceedings, dated 24.4.2012. the learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the said order dated 24.4.2012 has not been challenged by the respondents 6 and 7. if that be the case, i do not think that the petitioner can file the present writ petition based on mere apprehension that the respondents 6 and 7 are going to get no objection certificate from the fourth respondent, when it is seen that earlier, the very same revenue official has rejected such request through his proceedings, dated 24.4.2012. therefore, i think that the petitioner has approached this court based on mere apprehension, which cannot be entertained at this stage. 5. accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, however, with liberty to the petitioner to approach this court, if and when any order is passed by the said official namely the fourth respondent/the revenue divisional officer, periyakulam, theni district or any other revenue officials granting no objection certificate to the respondents 6 and 7. no costs.

Full Judgment

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents 2 to 5 herein from issuing No Objection Certificate to the sixth and seventh respondents herein for forming petrol bunk in S.Nos.535/14 and 535/14B of Myladumparai Village, Andipatti Taluk, Theni District in the light of the proceedings passed by the fourth respondent vide Na.Ka.No.535/2012/A4, dated 24.4.2012 by considering the Petitioner's representation made before them dated 7.12.2016.)

1. This Writ Petition is filed to forbear the respondents 2 to 5 from issuing No Objection Certificate to the respondents 6 and 7 for forming Petrol Bunk in S.Nos.535/14 and 535/14B of Myladumparai Village, Andipatti Taluk, Theni District in the light of the proceedings passed by the fourth respondent vide Na.Ka.No.535/2012/A4, dated 24.4.2012 by considering the Petitioner's representation, dated 7.12.2016.

2. Mr.C.Selvaraj, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents 1 to 5.

3. By consent of both parties, the main Writ Petition is taken up for disposal, at the admission stage itself.

4. The grievance of the Petitioner is that the respondents 6 and 7 are making hectic attempts to get No Objection Certificate from the Revenue Divisional Officer, Periyakulam, Theni District, by making a fresh application, even though the very same official has already rejected such request through his proceedings, dated 24.4.2012. The learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that the said order dated 24.4.2012 has not been challenged by the respondents 6 and 7. If that be the case, I do not think that the Petitioner can file the present Writ Petition based on mere apprehension that the respondents 6 and 7 are going to get No Objection Certificate from the fourth respondent, when it is seen that earlier, the very same revenue official has rejected such request through his proceedings, dated 24.4.2012. Therefore, I think that the Petitioner has approached this Court based on mere apprehension, which cannot be entertained at this stage.

5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of, however, with liberty to the Petitioner to approach this Court, if and when any order is passed by the said official namely the fourth respondent/The Revenue Divisional Officer, Periyakulam, Theni District or any other revenue officials granting No Objection Certificate to the respondents 6 and 7. No costs.

Same Court & Year Chennai Madurai · 2016 Same Parties P. Moorthy vs The State, represented by its Secretary to Gove... Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge K. Ravichandrabaabu