N.Subrayan. Vs. K.Murugesan

N.Subrayan vs K.Murugesan

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Jul 19, 2012

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/928238

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/928238
Court: Chennai High Court
Judge: G.Rajasuria, J.
Decided On: Jul 19, 2012
Case Number: C.R.P.NPD.No.2674 of 2012 and M.P.No.1 of 2011
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

N.Subrayan

Advocate Mr.K.Rajasekaran, Adv.

Respondent

K.Murugesan

Excerpt

civil revision petition preferred against the order dated 31.1.2012 passed by the subordinate judge, harur, in r.e.a.no.47 of 2011 in e.p.no.9 of 2010.order1. animadverting upon the order 31.1.2012 passed by the subordinate judge, harur, in r.e.a.no.47 of 2011 in e.p.no.9 of 2010, this civil revision petition is filed.2. heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/judgement debtor, who would echo the cri de coeur of his client to the effect that the executing court, by its order dated 31.1.2012 denied the opportunity of the judgement debtor to highlight his grievance relating to the low valuation of his property and according to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/judgement debtor, even the property was not properly described, including the extent.3. a bare perusal of the order passed by the executing court would exemplify and demonstrate, project and portray that the said order is not at all adverse to the revision petitioner/judgement debtor. the executing court, unambiguously and unequivocally shed light on the point that only in the e.p., after hearing both sides relating to the counter filed by the judgement debtor order was passed and the executing court pellucidly and palpably pointed out that ample opportunity is available for the judgement debtor to raise his objection relating to valuation, at the time of settlement of proclamation. as per that order, so far settlement of proclamation was not made. the law is so clear that at the stage of settlement of proclamation, the judgement debtor is having full right to challenge and question all the entries that are proposed to be incorporated in the sale proclamation.4. in view of the above, absolutely there is no merit in this revision and accordingly it is dismissed. however, by way of reiterating and to disambiguate the ambiguity if any, i make it clear that liberty is given to the judgement debtor to raise all his pleas at the time of settlement of proclamation.5. the revision petition.....

Full Judgment

Civil revision petition preferred against the order dated 31.1.2012 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Harur, in R.E.A.No.47 of 2011 in E.P.No.9 of 2010.

ORDER

1. Animadverting upon the order 31.1.2012 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Harur, in R.E.A.No.47 of 2011 in E.P.No.9 of 2010, this civil revision petition is filed.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/judgement debtor, who would echo the cri de coeur of his client to the effect that the Executing Court, by its order dated 31.1.2012 denied the opportunity of the judgement debtor to highlight his grievance relating to the low valuation of his property and according to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/judgement debtor, even the property was not properly described, including the extent.

3. A bare perusal of the order passed by the Executing Court would exemplify and demonstrate, project and portray that the said order is not at all adverse to the revision petitioner/judgement debtor. The Executing Court, unambiguously and unequivocally shed light on the point that only in the E.P., after hearing both sides relating to the counter filed by the judgement debtor order was passed and the Executing Court pellucidly and palpably pointed out that ample opportunity is available for the judgement debtor to raise his objection relating to valuation, at the time of settlement of proclamation. As per that order, so far settlement of proclamation was not made. The law is so clear that at the stage of settlement of proclamation, the judgement debtor is having full right to challenge and question all the entries that are proposed to be incorporated in the sale proclamation.

4. In view of the above, absolutely there is no merit in this revision and accordingly it is dismissed. However, by way of reiterating and to disambiguate the ambiguity if any, I make it clear that liberty is given to the judgement debtor to raise all his pleas at the time of settlement of proclamation.

5. The revision petition is disposed of accordingly. However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Same Court & Year Chennai · 2012 Same Parties N.Subrayan vs K.Murugesan Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge G.Rajasuria, J.