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.

P. Alagammal and ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Represented by the Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department and ors.

P. Alagammal and ors. vs State of Tamil Nadu Represented by the Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Depart

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Feb 26, 1990
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/820792

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 High Court
Decided On
Subject
Property

Case Summary

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

-

Key legal issue
Property

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

P. Alagammal and ors.

Respondent

State of Tamil Nadu Represented by the Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Depart

Legal References

Reported In
(1990)1MLJ145

Excerpt

- nainar sundaram, j.1. these two writ appeals arise out of the common order of the learned single judge, who disposed of three writ petitions, namely, w.p. nos. 2732, 2771 and 2816 of 1983. today we have disposed of w.a. no. 987 of 1984, directed against w.p. no. 2816 of 1983. (see : (1990)1mlj142 .) here w.a. no. 1065 of 1984 is directed against w.p. no. 2732 of 1983 and w.a. no. 1066 of 1984 is directed against w.p. no. 2771 of 1983. the acquisition proceedings under the land acquisition act 1 of 1984, hereinafter referred to as the act, covered the lands of all the parties. the learned single judge allowed the writ petitions preferred by the land owners to the extent of quashing the acquisition proceedings, leaving the notification under section 4(1) of the act intact. the facts of the present cases are similar to the facts of the case dealt with by us in w.a. no. 987 of 1984. the same ratio, as applied by us, for allowing w.a. no. 987 of 1984, applies to the facts of the present cases also. thus applied, these writ appeals deserve allowing. accordingly, we allow these writ appeals on the same terms as done in w.a. no. 987 of 1984. no costs.

Full Judgment

Nainar Sundaram, J.

1. These two writ Appeals arise out of the common order of the learned single Judge, who disposed of three Writ Petitions, namely, W.P. Nos. 2732, 2771 and 2816 of 1983. Today we have disposed of W.A. No. 987 of 1984, directed against W.P. No. 2816 of 1983. (See : (1990)1MLJ142 .) Here W.A. No. 1065 of 1984 is directed against W.P. No. 2732 of 1983 and W.A. No. 1066 of 1984 is directed against W.P. No. 2771 of 1983. The acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act 1 of 1984, hereinafter referred to as the Act, covered the lands of all the parties. The learned single Judge allowed the Writ Petitions preferred by the land owners to the extent of quashing the acquisition proceedings, leaving the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act intact. The facts of the present cases are similar to the facts of the case dealt with by us in W.A. No. 987 of 1984. The same ratio, as applied by us, for allowing W.A. No. 987 of 1984, applies to the facts of the present cases also. Thus applied, these Writ Appeals deserve allowing. Accordingly, we allow these Writ Appeals on the same terms as done in W.A. No. 987 of 1984. No costs.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial