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.

R.Devaraj. Vs. the Commissioner, and ors.

R.Devaraj vs The Commissioner, and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Jul 27, 2012
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/928022

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
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Writ Petition No.19700 of 2012 and M.P.No.1 of 2012
Subject
Constitution

Case Summary

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

Constitution

Key legal issue
Constitution
Acts & sections
Constitution of India - Articles 226

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

R.Devaraj

Advocate Mr.B.Nedunchezhiyan, Adv

Respondent

The Commissioner, and ors.

Advocate Mr.K.Makesh, Adv.

Legal References

Acts
Constitution of India - Articles 226

Excerpt

writ petition is filed under article 226 of the constitution of india praying to issue a writ of mandamus, forbearing the respondents from acquiring the land in door no.7/2, mahalakshmi nagar, 3rd street, uppilipalayam post, coimbatore in an unlawful manner.order1. this writ petition is filed praying to issue a writ of mandamus, forbearing the respondents from acquiring the land in door no.7/2, mahalakshmi nagar, 3rd street, uppilipalayam post, coimbatore in an unlawful manner.2. mr.k.makesh, learned counsel takes notice for the respondents.  by consent the writ petition is taken up for disposal.3. the grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents should not acquire the petitioner's land without following the due process of law. a representation dated 26.6.2012 has been sent and a photo copy of the postal acknowledgment dated 28.6.2012 signed by the second respondent is filed along with the typedset of papers.4. the counsel appearing for the respondents states that the authority will verify the claim of the petitioner, examine his right, title and interest on the property and proceed in the matter by following the due process of law. the apprehension of the petitioner is misconceived.5. considering the above submission made by the learned counsel for the respondents, the second respondent is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner on merits and in accordance with law expeditiously. the authority is directed to proceed in the matter only by following the due process of law. this court has not expressed any opinion on the claim of the petitioner.6. the writ petition is disposed of as above. no costs. consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Full Judgment

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents from acquiring the land in Door No.7/2, Mahalakshmi Nagar, 3rd Street, Uppilipalayam Post, Coimbatore in an unlawful manner.

ORDER

1. This Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents from acquiring the land in Door No.7/2, Mahalakshmi Nagar, 3rd Street, Uppilipalayam Post, Coimbatore in an unlawful manner.

2. Mr.K.Makesh, learned counsel takes notice for the respondents.  By consent the writ petition is taken up for disposal.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents should not acquire the petitioner's land without following the due process of law. A representation dated 26.6.2012 has been sent and a photo copy of the postal acknowledgment dated 28.6.2012 signed by the second respondent is filed along with the typedset of papers.

4. The counsel appearing for the respondents states that the authority will verify the claim of the petitioner, examine his right, title and interest on the property and proceed in the matter by following the due process of law. The apprehension of the petitioner is misconceived.

5. Considering the above submission made by the learned counsel for the respondents, the second respondent is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner on merits and in accordance with law expeditiously. The authority is directed to proceed in the matter only by following the due process of law. This Court has not expressed any opinion on the claim of the petitioner.

6. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial