Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Petitioner Vs. Respondent

Petitioner vs Respondent

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Madurai Decided Aug 11, 2016
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1189075

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Chennai Madurai High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
M.P. (MD) No. 2 of 2014 & W.A.(MD)No. 1270 of 2014
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

Respondent

Excerpt

nooty. ramamohana rao,j. 1. it is appropriate to notice that while entertaining w.p.nos.8959 and 9025 of 1999, the learned single judge, by his order dated 04.08.2008 allowed the writ petitions and quashed the impugned order of clarification furnished by the state government. the matter was then carried in appeal by the state government and w.a.nos.1666 and 1667 of 2009 was heard by a division bench, on 15.11.2009 and by an order passed on that day, dismissed both the writ appeals, observing that they have become infructuous. but, however, the matter was again brought to the notice of this court. hence, the same division bench dealt with w.a.nos.1666 and 1667 of 2009 on 18.11.2009 and by a detailed order passed therein, it was observed that the contents of g.o.ms.no.175, rural development and panchayat (e5) department, dated 05.12.2006, under which, the village panchayat employees on consolidated pay basis were brought to regular time scale of pay with effect from 19th february 2006 was not brought to the notice of the learned single judge and hence, the division bench dismissed the writ petitions and allowed the writ appeals. 2. we find now that the learned single judge has not noticed the subsequent order passed by the division bench on 18.11.2009 in w.a.nos.1666 and 1667 of 2009. in that view of the matter, let there be stay of operation. 3. let the special government pleader keep the paper book by filing all the relevant g.os and if necessary together with the translated copies thereon. liberty is preserved to both sides for making a mention for hearing the writ appeal out of turn basis, after four weeks.

Full Judgment

Nooty. Ramamohana Rao,J.

1. It is appropriate to notice that while entertaining W.P.Nos.8959 and 9025 of 1999, the Learned Single Judge, by his order dated 04.08.2008 allowed the writ petitions and quashed the impugned order of clarification furnished by the State Government. The matter was then carried in appeal by the State Government and W.A.Nos.1666 and 1667 of 2009 was heard by a Division Bench, on 15.11.2009 and by an order passed on that day, dismissed both the writ appeals, observing that they have become infructuous. But, however, the matter was again brought to the notice of this Court. Hence, the same Division Bench dealt with W.A.Nos.1666 and 1667 of 2009 on 18.11.2009 and by a detailed order passed therein, it was observed that the contents of G.O.Ms.No.175, Rural Development and Panchayat (E5) Department, dated 05.12.2006, under which, the Village Panchayat Employees on consolidated pay basis were brought to regular time scale of pay with effect from 19th February 2006 was not brought to the notice of the Learned Single Judge and hence, the Division Bench dismissed the writ petitions and allowed the writ appeals.

2. We find now that the Learned Single Judge has not noticed the subsequent order passed by the Division Bench on 18.11.2009 in W.A.Nos.1666 and 1667 of 2009. In that view of the matter, let there be stay of operation.

3. Let the Special Government Pleader keep the paper book by filing all the relevant G.Os and if necessary together with the translated copies thereon. Liberty is preserved to both sides for making a mention for hearing the writ appeal out of turn basis, after four weeks.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial