V. Ramalingam Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department and Others

V. Ramalingam vs The Government of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Madurai Decided Sep 11, 2012

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/934226

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/934226
Court: Chennai Madurai High Court
Judge: R. Sudhakar
Decided On: Sep 11, 2012
Case Number: W.P.(MD)No.1101 of 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

V. Ramalingam

Advocate For the Petitioner: R. Subramanian, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1 and R2 - V. Muruganantham, Additional Govt. Pleader, R3 - K. Muraleedharan, R4 - V. Raghavachari, Advocates.

Respondent

The Government of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department and Others

Excerpt

.....mr.r.subramanian, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, mr.v.muruganantham, learned additional government pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2, mr.k.muraleedharan, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent and mr.v.raghavachari, learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent. 3. by consent, the writ petitions itself are taken up for final disposal. 4. the petitioner and the fourth respondent are the contesting parties. the third respondent - president of kovil pappakudi panchayat, appears to have changed the property tax assessment from that of the petitioner in favour of the fourth respondent. 5. aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has filed a revision petition before the first respondent on 08.10.2007. 6. the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is pending before the first respondent government for adjudication. 7. in such view of the matter, the writ petition has been filed to dispose of the said revision petition. 8. without going into the merits of the petitioner's claim, the first respondent is directed to dispose of the revision petition filed by the petitioner, if not already disposed of, on its own merit and in accordance with law within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after hearing the petitioner as well as the fourth respondent, who is already the third respondent in the revision petition. it is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the authority concerned is free to deal with the matter on its own merit as per law. 9. the writ petition is disposed of as above. no costs.

Full Judgment

(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus to direct the first respondent to dispose of the Revision Petition filed by the petitioner on 08.10.2007 within a time frame fixed by this Court.)

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to issue a writ of Mandamus to direct the first respondent to dispose of the Revision Petition filed by the petitioner on 08.10.2007 within a time frame fixed by this Court.

2. Heard Mr.R.Subramanian, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.V.Muruganantham, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2, Mr.K.Muraleedharan, learned Counsel appearing for the third respondent and Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned Counsel appearing for the fourth respondent.

3. By consent, the writ petitions itself are taken up for final disposal.

4. The petitioner and the fourth respondent are the contesting parties. The third respondent - President of Kovil Pappakudi Panchayat, appears to have changed the property tax assessment from that of the petitioner in favour of the fourth respondent.

5. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has filed a Revision Petition before the first respondent on 08.10.2007.

6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that it is pending before the first respondent Government for adjudication.

7. In such view of the matter, the writ petition has been filed to dispose of the said Revision Petition.

8. Without going into the merits of the petitioner's claim, the first respondent is directed to dispose of the Revision Petition filed by the petitioner, if not already disposed of, on its own merit and in accordance with law within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after hearing the petitioner as well as the fourth respondent, who is already the third respondent in the Revision Petition. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the authority concerned is free to deal with the matter on its own merit as per law.

9. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs.

Same Court & Year Chennai Madurai · 2012 Same Parties V. Ramalingam vs The Government of Tamil Nadu, Represented by... Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge R. Sudhakar