Petitioner Vs. Respondents

Petitioner vs Respondents

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Sep 07, 2016

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1188436

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/1188436
Court: Chennai High Court
Judge: M. Venugopal
Decided On: Sep 07, 2016
Case Number: MP. No.1 of 2013 in Crl. A. Sr. No. 16483 of 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

Petitioner

Respondent

Respondents

Excerpt

1. heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant/respondent/complainant. 2. it appears from the order of this court dated 22.08.2016 in m.p.no.1 of 2013 in crl.a.sr.no.16483 of 2013 that though notice was sent to the respondent, the cover was returned as unclaimed . hence, the petitioner/appellant was directed to take steps to serve the respondent through paper publication in two dailies i.e., one in english and one in tamil, for the hearing on 07.09.2016. 3. it transpires that the petitioner had effected paper publication in m.p.no.1 of 2013 in crl.a.sr.16483 of 2013 only in evening tamil daily namely, malai sudar dated 25.08.2016. however, the petitioner/appellant has not taken steps till date for effecting publication in english daily as ordered by this court earlier on 22.08.2016. in view of the foregoings, this court to prevent an aberration of justice, directs the petitioner/appellant/respondent/complainant to effect publication in english daily (where there is wide circulation and also in and around the vicinity of the respondent's address) indicating the date of hearing as 21.09.2016. 4. is directed to list the matter on 21.09.2016.

Full Judgment

1. Heard the Learned counsel for the Petitioner/Appellant/Respondent/Complainant.

2. It appears from the order of this Court dated 22.08.2016 in M.P.No.1 of 2013 in Crl.A.SR.No.16483 of 2013 that though notice was sent to the Respondent, the cover was returned as unclaimed . Hence, the Petitioner/Appellant was directed to take steps to serve the Respondent through paper publication in two dailies i.e., one in English and one in Tamil, for the hearing on 07.09.2016.

3. It transpires that the Petitioner had effected paper publication in M.P.No.1 of 2013 in Crl.A.SR.16483 of 2013 only in Evening Tamil daily namely, Malai Sudar dated 25.08.2016. However, the Petitioner/Appellant has not taken steps till date for effecting publication in English daily as ordered by this Court earlier on 22.08.2016. In view of the foregoings, this Court to prevent an aberration of justice, directs the Petitioner/Appellant/Respondent/Complainant to effect publication in English daily (where there is wide circulation and also in and around the vicinity of the Respondent's address) indicating the date of hearing as 21.09.2016.

4. is directed to list the matter on 21.09.2016.

Same Court & Year Chennai · 2016 Same Parties Petitioner vs Respondents Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge M. Venugopal