E. Arasu and Another Vs. the Principal Secretary, Chennai and Others

E. Arasu and Another vs The Principal Secretary, Chennai and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Aug 27, 2012

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/934039

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/934039
Court: Chennai High Court
Judge: M. Jaichandren
Decided On: Aug 27, 2012
Case Number: Writ Petition No.12074 of 2012 & M.P.No.1 & 2012
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

E. Arasu and Another

Advocate For the Petitioners: R. Chellamuthu, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1, R2, R4, R. Ravichandran, Additional Government Pleader, R3, M.K. Subramanian, Special Government Pleader, R5, K. Ramakrishna Reddy, Advocate.

Respondent

The Principal Secretary, Chennai and Others

Excerpt

.....of the representation of the first petitioner, dated 14.04.2012, on merits, within a specified period. 3. the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents have no objection for such an order being passed by this court. 4. in view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on either side, the fourth respondent is directed to dispose of the representation of the first petitioner, dated 14.04.2012, on merits and in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the first petitioner, the fifth respondent, as well as the other persons concerned, if any, within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. the fourth respondent may also call for a report from the assistant director of geology and mining, kancheepuram district, before passing further orders, as directed by this court. the first petitioner is directed to furnish a copy of the representation, dated 14.04.2012, to the fourth respondent, along with a copy of this order. however, it is made clear that this court, by this order, has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. the writ petition is disposed of accordingly. no costs. consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

Full Judgment

(Prayer: This petition has been filed seeking for a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to stop quarrying beyond the permitted rules of sand in Palar River sand bed situate on southern side of survey No.1076-1, 1079-1, 1095-5B, 1096-4B, 1121-1A, 1139-1A and 1141 Musaravakkam Village and morefully situate immediate/adjacent southern side of agricultural land in Survey No.24-1, 24-3, 24-5, 24-5B, 25-1, 25-2, 25-3, 25-4, 26-1, 26-2, 26-3,26-4, 26-5, 27-3, 27-4, 35-2, 35-3, 40-2 at Pichavadi village, Kancheepuram taluk and District and restore the sand level to its original level by filling up the excavated pits in the sand bed of Palar River.)

1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, as well as the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners had submitted that it would suffice, if the fourth respondent is directed to dispose of the representation of the first petitioner, dated 14.04.2012, on merits, within a specified period.

3. The learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents have no objection for such an order being passed by this Court.

4. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on either side, the fourth respondent is directed to dispose of the representation of the first petitioner, dated 14.04.2012, on merits and in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the first petitioner, the fifth respondent, as well as the other persons concerned, if any, within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The fourth respondent may also call for a report from the Assistant Director of Geology and Mining, Kancheepuram District, before passing further orders, as directed by this Court. The first petitioner is directed to furnish a copy of the representation, dated 14.04.2012, to the fourth respondent, along with a copy of this order. However, it is made clear that this Court, by this order, has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter.

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

Same Court & Year Chennai · 2012 Same Parties E. Arasu and Another vs The Principal Secretary, Chennai and ... Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge M. Jaichandren

Land Acquisition In accordance with law Agricultural land On behalf of Other person dispose of As well as Has been