K.Selvaraj Vs. 1.The Additional Director (in-charge),

K.Selvaraj vs 1.The Additional Director (in-charge),

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Jan 07, 2013

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/965799

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/965799
Court: Chennai High Court
Judge: K.Ravichandrabaabu
Decided On: Jan 07, 2013
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

K.Selvaraj

Respondent

1.The Additional Director (in-charge),

Excerpt

.....the present charge memo came to be passed in the year 2004. 3.though, the writ petition was filed challenging the said charge memo on various grounds, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner now submits before this court that the petitioner is willing to restrict the relief in this writ petition to seek for a direction to the respondents to complete the enquiry within a time stipulated by this court. 4.the learned government advocate appearing for the respondents submits that because of stay granted by this court, further enquiry could not be proceeded against the petitioner, pursuant to the issuance of the charge memo. 5.considering the limited prayer made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and without going into the other merits of the case, i only direct the first respondent to complete the enquiry and pass final orders, in pursuant to the issuance of the impugned charge memo, within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. no costs. er to, 1.the additional director (in-charge), department of land survey & land records, chepauk, chennai-5. 2.the inspector of survey, survey & land records, dindigul maintenance & mobile, dindigul west, dindigul district. 3.the government advocate, madurai bench of madras high court, madruai.

Full Judgment

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:

07. 01/2013 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU W.P(MD)No.6256 of 2006 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 of 2006, 1 of 2007 and 2 of 2008 K.Selvaraj ... Petitioner vs 1.The Additional Director (In-charge), Department of Land Survey & Land Records, Chepauk, Chennai-5. 2.The Inspector of Survey, Survey & Land Records, Dindigul Maintenance & Mobile, Dindigul West, Dindigul District. ... Respondents Prayer Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the impugned charge memo issued by the 1st respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.2/59/9/03(2), dated 20.12.2004 and quash the same as illegal. !For Petitioner ... Mr.M.Ajmal Khan ^For Respondents ... Mrs.S.Bharathi Government Advocate :ORDER The challenge in this writ petition is against the charge memo issued by the first respondent, dated 20.12.2004. 2.The case of the petitioner is that he was originally appointed as 'Field Surveyor' in the year 1965 and promoted as 'Sub Inspector of Survey' in the year 1984. He retired on 30.06.2002 on attaining the age of superannuation. The Assistant Director of Survey & Land Records, Dindigul, through his proceedings, dated 27.06.2002 permitting the petitioner to retire. Thereafter, the present charge memo came to be passed in the year 2004. 3.Though, the writ petition was filed challenging the said charge memo on various grounds, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner now submits before this court that the petitioner is willing to restrict the relief in this writ petition to seek for a direction to the respondents to complete the enquiry within a time stipulated by this court. 4.The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submits that because of stay granted by this court, further enquiry could not be proceeded against the petitioner, pursuant to the issuance of the charge memo. 5.Considering the limited prayer made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and without going into the other merits of the case, I only direct the first respondent to complete the enquiry and pass final orders, in pursuant to the issuance of the impugned charge memo, within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs. er To, 1.The Additional Director (In-charge), Department of Land Survey & Land Records, Chepauk, Chennai-5. 2.The Inspector of Survey, Survey & Land Records, Dindigul Maintenance & Mobile, Dindigul West, Dindigul District. 3.The Government Advocate, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madruai.

Same Court & Year Chennai · 2013 Same Parties K.Selvaraj vs 1.The Additional Director (in-charge), Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge K.Ravichandrabaabu