| SooperKanoon Citation | sooperkanoon.com/793075 |
| Subject | Property |
| Court | Chennai High Court |
| Decided On | Nov-19-1987 |
| Reported in | (1987)2MLJ280 |
| Appellant | Mymon Bi and anr. |
| Respondent | State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Commissioner and Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Dep |
| Cases Referred | Salem v. Kuppu Gounder |
Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]Code Contextecho "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Mymon Bi and anr Vs State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Commissioner and Secretary Housing and Urban Development Department and anr - Citation 793075 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '793075', 'acts' => '', 'appealno' => '', 'appellant' => 'Mymon Bi and anr.', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Mymon Bi and anr. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Commissioner and Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department and anr.', 'casenote' => ' - - Overruling the objections, the Collector recommended the acquisition to be proceeded with. 4. In this connection, we would like to point out that the Supreme Court in Hari Singh v.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'Salem v. Kuppu Gounder;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => '', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Chennai', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1987-11-19', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => '', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Ratnavel Pandian, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. These two appeals are preferred against the order of Mohan, J., made in W.P. Nos. 8586 and 8587 of 1987 dismissing those writ petitions which were filed challenging the validity, of the land acquisition proceedings taken out for public purpose, viz. for the creation of a new neighbourhood known as Kalaignar Karunanidhi Nagar.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The brief facts of the case are as follows : A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was made on 29.8.1975, and it was published in the Gazette on 1.10.1975. The property was originally owned by one Noorudeen and Saradambal. The daughters of Noorudeen are the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 8586 and 8587 of 1987 (which were heard by the learned single Judge). On 4.3.1975, the daughters of Noorudeen entered into an agreement for sale of the property to one Sundaram. After the publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, the said Sundaram and the petitioners in the two writ petitions executed an agreement for sale in favour of Selliamman Koil Co-operative House Site Society Ltd., which was the petitioner in W.P. No. 2344 of 1983. The daughters of Noorudeen filed their objections, objecting to the acquisition during the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. Overruling the objections, the Collector recommended the acquisition to be proceeded with. Thereupon, the Government accepted the recommendation of the Collector and issued a declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 29.9.1978. After the proceedings under Sections 9(2) and 10, the awards had been passed on 28.2.1983 and 30.5.1983 in respect of parcels of the lands under acquisition. Mohan, J., who heard the writ petitions along with W.P. No. 2344 of 1986 filed by Selliamman Koil Co-operative House Site Society Ltd., after elaborately considering all the contentions raised before him, has dismissed these two writ petitions. Hence, these appeals. It cannot be gainsaid that these appellants have preferred the two writ petitions after a delay of 12 years reckoned from the date of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act or 9 years reckoned from the date of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act. They have not made any statement as to why they had approached this Court after such a long delay. As rightly pointed out by the learned single Judge, the appellants might have thought that; they having agreed to sell the property in favour of the Society, the Society would fight against the acquisition proceedings.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Mr. K. Ramamurthi, learned Counsel for the appellants, contending that the Court should take a liberal attitude in condonation of the delay and that this delay in the appellants approaching the Court should not stand in the way of granting the relief sought for by them, relied upon a decision of. the Supreme Court in Collector. Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji : (1987)ILLJ500SC , In that case, there was a delay of four days, and the said delay had not been condoned by the High Court. While dealing with such a situation, the Supreme Court has stated thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Every day's delay must be explained does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made xxx xxx xxx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In our view, the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in that case having regard to the facts of the case cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case in which, as pointed out earlier, there is a long delay of 12 years from the date of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and 9 years from the date of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In this connection, we would like to point out that the Supreme Court in Hari Singh v. State of U.P. : [1984]3SCR417 , has dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay of 2-1/2 years. In the present case, the appellants had every knowledge of the acquisition since they admittedly filed their objections during the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act which was held on 10.12.1975 and 12.12.1975. Yet it did not occur to them that they should question the acquisition. As rightly pointed out by the learned Judge, probably these two appellants wanted somebody else to fight the battle.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Learned Counsel now states that the land acquired is proposed to be used for some purpose other than the one for which it was acquired. But he would fairly concede that there is no notification to that effect. The decision cited by the learned Counsel in Special Deputy Collector and Land Acquisition Officer, Salem Steel Plant, Salem v. Kuppu Gounder 1985 T.L.N.J. 284, in support of his contention cannot be of any help in this case since admittedly there is no notification that this land is going to be utilised for a purpose other than the one for which it was acquired. Under these circumstances, we see no merit in these appeals. These writ appeals are dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '(1987)2MLJ280', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Commissioner and Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Dep', 'sub' => 'Property', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'mymon-bi-vs-represented-commissioner', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '793075', (int) 1 => 'mymon-bi-vs-represented-commissioner' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Mymon Bi and anr Vs State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Commissioner and Secretary Housing and Urban Development Department and anr - Citation 793075 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '793075', 'acts' => '', 'appealno' => '', 'appellant' => 'Mymon Bi and anr.', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Mymon Bi and anr. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Commissioner and Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department and anr.', 'casenote' => ' - - Overruling the objections, the Collector recommended the acquisition to be proceeded with. 4. In this connection, we would like to point out that the Supreme Court in Hari Singh v.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'Salem v. Kuppu Gounder;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => '', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Chennai', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1987-11-19', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => '', 'judgement' => '<p>Ratnavel Pandian, J.</p><p>1. These two appeals are preferred against the order of Mohan, J., made in W.P. Nos. 8586 and 8587 of 1987 dismissing those writ petitions which were filed challenging the validity, of the land acquisition proceedings taken out for public purpose, viz. for the creation of a new neighbourhood known as Kalaignar Karunanidhi Nagar.</p><p>2. The brief facts of the case are as follows : A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was made on 29.8.1975, and it was published in the Gazette on 1.10.1975. The property was originally owned by one Noorudeen and Saradambal. The daughters of Noorudeen are the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 8586 and 8587 of 1987 (which were heard by the learned single Judge). On 4.3.1975, the daughters of Noorudeen entered into an agreement for sale of the property to one Sundaram. After the publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, the said Sundaram and the petitioners in the two writ petitions executed an agreement for sale in favour of Selliamman Koil Co-operative House Site Society Ltd., which was the petitioner in W.P. No. 2344 of 1983. The daughters of Noorudeen filed their objections, objecting to the acquisition during the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. Overruling the objections, the Collector recommended the acquisition to be proceeded with. Thereupon, the Government accepted the recommendation of the Collector and issued a declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 29.9.1978. After the proceedings under Sections 9(2) and 10, the awards had been passed on 28.2.1983 and 30.5.1983 in respect of parcels of the lands under acquisition. Mohan, J., who heard the writ petitions along with W.P. No. 2344 of 1986 filed by Selliamman Koil Co-operative House Site Society Ltd., after elaborately considering all the contentions raised before him, has dismissed these two writ petitions. Hence, these appeals. It cannot be gainsaid that these appellants have preferred the two writ petitions after a delay of 12 years reckoned from the date of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act or 9 years reckoned from the date of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act. They have not made any statement as to why they had approached this Court after such a long delay. As rightly pointed out by the learned single Judge, the appellants might have thought that; they having agreed to sell the property in favour of the Society, the Society would fight against the acquisition proceedings.</p><p>3. Mr. K. Ramamurthi, learned Counsel for the appellants, contending that the Court should take a liberal attitude in condonation of the delay and that this delay in the appellants approaching the Court should not stand in the way of granting the relief sought for by them, relied upon a decision of. the Supreme Court in Collector. Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji : (1987)ILLJ500SC , In that case, there was a delay of four days, and the said delay had not been condoned by the High Court. While dealing with such a situation, the Supreme Court has stated thus:</p><p>'Every day's delay must be explained does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made xxx xxx xxx</p><p>When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay.</p><p>In our view, the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in that case having regard to the facts of the case cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case in which, as pointed out earlier, there is a long delay of 12 years from the date of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and 9 years from the date of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act.</p><p>4. In this connection, we would like to point out that the Supreme Court in Hari Singh v. State of U.P. : [1984]3SCR417 , has dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay of 2-1/2 years. In the present case, the appellants had every knowledge of the acquisition since they admittedly filed their objections during the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act which was held on 10.12.1975 and 12.12.1975. Yet it did not occur to them that they should question the acquisition. As rightly pointed out by the learned Judge, probably these two appellants wanted somebody else to fight the battle.</p><p>5. Learned Counsel now states that the land acquired is proposed to be used for some purpose other than the one for which it was acquired. But he would fairly concede that there is no notification to that effect. The decision cited by the learned Counsel in Special Deputy Collector and Land Acquisition Officer, Salem Steel Plant, Salem v. Kuppu Gounder 1985 T.L.N.J. 284, in support of his contention cannot be of any help in this case since admittedly there is no notification that this land is going to be utilised for a purpose other than the one for which it was acquired. Under these circumstances, we see no merit in these appeals. These writ appeals are dismissed.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '(1987)2MLJ280', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Commissioner and Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Dep', 'sub' => 'Property', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'mymon-bi-vs-represented-commissioner' $args = array( (int) 0 => '793075', (int) 1 => 'mymon-bi-vs-represented-commissioner' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/793075/mymon-bi-vs-represented-commissioner' $ctype = ' High Court' $caseref = 'Salem v. Kuppu Gounder<br>'include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]- - overruling the objections, the collector recommended the acquisition to be proceeded with. 4. in this connection, we would like to point out that the supreme court in hari singh v.Code Contextecho "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Mymon Bi and anr Vs State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Commissioner and Secretary Housing and Urban Development Department and anr - Citation 793075 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '793075', 'acts' => '', 'appealno' => '', 'appellant' => 'Mymon Bi and anr.', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Mymon Bi and anr. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Commissioner and Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department and anr.', 'casenote' => ' - - Overruling the objections, the Collector recommended the acquisition to be proceeded with. 4. In this connection, we would like to point out that the Supreme Court in Hari Singh v.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'Salem v. Kuppu Gounder;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => '', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Chennai', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1987-11-19', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => '', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Ratnavel Pandian, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. These two appeals are preferred against the order of Mohan, J., made in W.P. Nos. 8586 and 8587 of 1987 dismissing those writ petitions which were filed challenging the validity, of the land acquisition proceedings taken out for public purpose, viz. for the creation of a new neighbourhood known as Kalaignar Karunanidhi Nagar.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The brief facts of the case are as follows : A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was made on 29.8.1975, and it was published in the Gazette on 1.10.1975. The property was originally owned by one Noorudeen and Saradambal. The daughters of Noorudeen are the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 8586 and 8587 of 1987 (which were heard by the learned single Judge). On 4.3.1975, the daughters of Noorudeen entered into an agreement for sale of the property to one Sundaram. After the publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, the said Sundaram and the petitioners in the two writ petitions executed an agreement for sale in favour of Selliamman Koil Co-operative House Site Society Ltd., which was the petitioner in W.P. No. 2344 of 1983. The daughters of Noorudeen filed their objections, objecting to the acquisition during the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. Overruling the objections, the Collector recommended the acquisition to be proceeded with. Thereupon, the Government accepted the recommendation of the Collector and issued a declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 29.9.1978. After the proceedings under Sections 9(2) and 10, the awards had been passed on 28.2.1983 and 30.5.1983 in respect of parcels of the lands under acquisition. Mohan, J., who heard the writ petitions along with W.P. No. 2344 of 1986 filed by Selliamman Koil Co-operative House Site Society Ltd., after elaborately considering all the contentions raised before him, has dismissed these two writ petitions. Hence, these appeals. It cannot be gainsaid that these appellants have preferred the two writ petitions after a delay of 12 years reckoned from the date of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act or 9 years reckoned from the date of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act. They have not made any statement as to why they had approached this Court after such a long delay. As rightly pointed out by the learned single Judge, the appellants might have thought that; they having agreed to sell the property in favour of the Society, the Society would fight against the acquisition proceedings.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Mr. K. Ramamurthi, learned Counsel for the appellants, contending that the Court should take a liberal attitude in condonation of the delay and that this delay in the appellants approaching the Court should not stand in the way of granting the relief sought for by them, relied upon a decision of. the Supreme Court in Collector. Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji : (1987)ILLJ500SC , In that case, there was a delay of four days, and the said delay had not been condoned by the High Court. While dealing with such a situation, the Supreme Court has stated thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Every day's delay must be explained does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made xxx xxx xxx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In our view, the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in that case having regard to the facts of the case cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case in which, as pointed out earlier, there is a long delay of 12 years from the date of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and 9 years from the date of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In this connection, we would like to point out that the Supreme Court in Hari Singh v. State of U.P. : [1984]3SCR417 , has dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay of 2-1/2 years. In the present case, the appellants had every knowledge of the acquisition since they admittedly filed their objections during the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act which was held on 10.12.1975 and 12.12.1975. Yet it did not occur to them that they should question the acquisition. As rightly pointed out by the learned Judge, probably these two appellants wanted somebody else to fight the battle.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Learned Counsel now states that the land acquired is proposed to be used for some purpose other than the one for which it was acquired. But he would fairly concede that there is no notification to that effect. The decision cited by the learned Counsel in Special Deputy Collector and Land Acquisition Officer, Salem Steel Plant, Salem v. Kuppu Gounder 1985 T.L.N.J. 284, in support of his contention cannot be of any help in this case since admittedly there is no notification that this land is going to be utilised for a purpose other than the one for which it was acquired. Under these circumstances, we see no merit in these appeals. These writ appeals are dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '(1987)2MLJ280', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Commissioner and Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Dep', 'sub' => 'Property', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'mymon-bi-vs-represented-commissioner', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '793075', (int) 1 => 'mymon-bi-vs-represented-commissioner' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Mymon Bi and anr Vs State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Commissioner and Secretary Housing and Urban Development Department and anr - Citation 793075 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '793075', 'acts' => '', 'appealno' => '', 'appellant' => 'Mymon Bi and anr.', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Mymon Bi and anr. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Commissioner and Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department and anr.', 'casenote' => ' - - Overruling the objections, the Collector recommended the acquisition to be proceeded with. 4. In this connection, we would like to point out that the Supreme Court in Hari Singh v.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'Salem v. Kuppu Gounder;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => '', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Chennai', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1987-11-19', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => '', 'judgement' => '<p>Ratnavel Pandian, J.</p><p>1. These two appeals are preferred against the order of Mohan, J., made in W.P. Nos. 8586 and 8587 of 1987 dismissing those writ petitions which were filed challenging the validity, of the land acquisition proceedings taken out for public purpose, viz. for the creation of a new neighbourhood known as Kalaignar Karunanidhi Nagar.</p><p>2. The brief facts of the case are as follows : A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was made on 29.8.1975, and it was published in the Gazette on 1.10.1975. The property was originally owned by one Noorudeen and Saradambal. The daughters of Noorudeen are the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 8586 and 8587 of 1987 (which were heard by the learned single Judge). On 4.3.1975, the daughters of Noorudeen entered into an agreement for sale of the property to one Sundaram. After the publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, the said Sundaram and the petitioners in the two writ petitions executed an agreement for sale in favour of Selliamman Koil Co-operative House Site Society Ltd., which was the petitioner in W.P. No. 2344 of 1983. The daughters of Noorudeen filed their objections, objecting to the acquisition during the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. Overruling the objections, the Collector recommended the acquisition to be proceeded with. Thereupon, the Government accepted the recommendation of the Collector and issued a declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 29.9.1978. After the proceedings under Sections 9(2) and 10, the awards had been passed on 28.2.1983 and 30.5.1983 in respect of parcels of the lands under acquisition. Mohan, J., who heard the writ petitions along with W.P. No. 2344 of 1986 filed by Selliamman Koil Co-operative House Site Society Ltd., after elaborately considering all the contentions raised before him, has dismissed these two writ petitions. Hence, these appeals. It cannot be gainsaid that these appellants have preferred the two writ petitions after a delay of 12 years reckoned from the date of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act or 9 years reckoned from the date of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act. They have not made any statement as to why they had approached this Court after such a long delay. As rightly pointed out by the learned single Judge, the appellants might have thought that; they having agreed to sell the property in favour of the Society, the Society would fight against the acquisition proceedings.</p><p>3. Mr. K. Ramamurthi, learned Counsel for the appellants, contending that the Court should take a liberal attitude in condonation of the delay and that this delay in the appellants approaching the Court should not stand in the way of granting the relief sought for by them, relied upon a decision of. the Supreme Court in Collector. Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji : (1987)ILLJ500SC , In that case, there was a delay of four days, and the said delay had not been condoned by the High Court. While dealing with such a situation, the Supreme Court has stated thus:</p><p>'Every day's delay must be explained does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made xxx xxx xxx</p><p>When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay.</p><p>In our view, the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in that case having regard to the facts of the case cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case in which, as pointed out earlier, there is a long delay of 12 years from the date of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and 9 years from the date of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act.</p><p>4. In this connection, we would like to point out that the Supreme Court in Hari Singh v. State of U.P. : [1984]3SCR417 , has dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay of 2-1/2 years. In the present case, the appellants had every knowledge of the acquisition since they admittedly filed their objections during the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act which was held on 10.12.1975 and 12.12.1975. Yet it did not occur to them that they should question the acquisition. As rightly pointed out by the learned Judge, probably these two appellants wanted somebody else to fight the battle.</p><p>5. Learned Counsel now states that the land acquired is proposed to be used for some purpose other than the one for which it was acquired. But he would fairly concede that there is no notification to that effect. The decision cited by the learned Counsel in Special Deputy Collector and Land Acquisition Officer, Salem Steel Plant, Salem v. Kuppu Gounder 1985 T.L.N.J. 284, in support of his contention cannot be of any help in this case since admittedly there is no notification that this land is going to be utilised for a purpose other than the one for which it was acquired. Under these circumstances, we see no merit in these appeals. These writ appeals are dismissed.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '(1987)2MLJ280', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Commissioner and Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Dep', 'sub' => 'Property', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'mymon-bi-vs-represented-commissioner' $args = array( (int) 0 => '793075', (int) 1 => 'mymon-bi-vs-represented-commissioner' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/793075/mymon-bi-vs-represented-commissioner' $ctype = ' High Court' $caseref = 'Salem v. Kuppu Gounder<br>'include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]Code Context}//highest occurence of word in the judgementecho $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Mymon Bi and anr Vs State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Commissioner and Secretary Housing and Urban Development Department and anr - Citation 793075 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '793075', 'acts' => '', 'appealno' => '', 'appellant' => 'Mymon Bi and anr.', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Mymon Bi and anr. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Commissioner and Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department and anr.', 'casenote' => ' - - Overruling the objections, the Collector recommended the acquisition to be proceeded with. 4. In this connection, we would like to point out that the Supreme Court in Hari Singh v.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'Salem v. Kuppu Gounder;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => '', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Chennai', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1987-11-19', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => '', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Ratnavel Pandian, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. These two appeals are preferred against the order of Mohan, J., made in W.P. Nos. 8586 and 8587 of 1987 dismissing those writ petitions which were filed challenging the validity, of the land acquisition proceedings taken out for public purpose, viz. for the creation of a new neighbourhood known as Kalaignar Karunanidhi Nagar.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The brief facts of the case are as follows : A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was made on 29.8.1975, and it was published in the Gazette on 1.10.1975. The property was originally owned by one Noorudeen and Saradambal. The daughters of Noorudeen are the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 8586 and 8587 of 1987 (which were heard by the learned single Judge). On 4.3.1975, the daughters of Noorudeen entered into an agreement for sale of the property to one Sundaram. After the publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, the said Sundaram and the petitioners in the two writ petitions executed an agreement for sale in favour of Selliamman Koil Co-operative House Site Society Ltd., which was the petitioner in W.P. No. 2344 of 1983. The daughters of Noorudeen filed their objections, objecting to the acquisition during the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. Overruling the objections, the Collector recommended the acquisition to be proceeded with. Thereupon, the Government accepted the recommendation of the Collector and issued a declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 29.9.1978. After the proceedings under Sections 9(2) and 10, the awards had been passed on 28.2.1983 and 30.5.1983 in respect of parcels of the lands under acquisition. Mohan, J., who heard the writ petitions along with W.P. No. 2344 of 1986 filed by Selliamman Koil Co-operative House Site Society Ltd., after elaborately considering all the contentions raised before him, has dismissed these two writ petitions. Hence, these appeals. It cannot be gainsaid that these appellants have preferred the two writ petitions after a delay of 12 years reckoned from the date of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act or 9 years reckoned from the date of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act. They have not made any statement as to why they had approached this Court after such a long delay. As rightly pointed out by the learned single Judge, the appellants might have thought that; they having agreed to sell the property in favour of the Society, the Society would fight against the acquisition proceedings.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Mr. K. Ramamurthi, learned Counsel for the appellants, contending that the Court should take a liberal attitude in condonation of the delay and that this delay in the appellants approaching the Court should not stand in the way of granting the relief sought for by them, relied upon a decision of. the Supreme Court in Collector. Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji : (1987)ILLJ500SC , In that case, there was a delay of four days, and the said delay had not been condoned by the High Court. While dealing with such a situation, the Supreme Court has stated thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Every day's delay must be explained does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made xxx xxx xxx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In our view, the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in that case having regard to the facts of the case cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case in which, as pointed out earlier, there is a long delay of 12 years from the date of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and 9 years from the date of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In this connection, we would like to point out that the Supreme Court in Hari Singh v. State of U.P. : [1984]3SCR417 , has dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay of 2-1/2 years. In the present case, the appellants had every knowledge of the acquisition since they admittedly filed their objections during the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act which was held on 10.12.1975 and 12.12.1975. Yet it did not occur to them that they should question the acquisition. As rightly pointed out by the learned Judge, probably these two appellants wanted somebody else to fight the battle.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Learned Counsel now states that the land acquired is proposed to be used for some purpose other than the one for which it was acquired. But he would fairly concede that there is no notification to that effect. The decision cited by the learned Counsel in Special Deputy Collector and Land Acquisition Officer, Salem Steel Plant, Salem v. Kuppu Gounder 1985 T.L.N.J. 284, in support of his contention cannot be of any help in this case since admittedly there is no notification that this land is going to be utilised for a purpose other than the one for which it was acquired. Under these circumstances, we see no merit in these appeals. These writ appeals are dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '(1987)2MLJ280', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Commissioner and Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Dep', 'sub' => 'Property', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'mymon-bi-vs-represented-commissioner', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '793075', (int) 1 => 'mymon-bi-vs-represented-commissioner' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Mymon Bi and anr Vs State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Commissioner and Secretary Housing and Urban Development Department and anr - Citation 793075 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '793075', 'acts' => '', 'appealno' => '', 'appellant' => 'Mymon Bi and anr.', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Mymon Bi and anr. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Commissioner and Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department and anr.', 'casenote' => ' - - Overruling the objections, the Collector recommended the acquisition to be proceeded with. 4. In this connection, we would like to point out that the Supreme Court in Hari Singh v.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'Salem v. Kuppu Gounder;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => '', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Chennai', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1987-11-19', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => '', 'judgement' => '<p>Ratnavel Pandian, J.</p><p>1. These two appeals are preferred against the order of Mohan, J., made in W.P. Nos. 8586 and 8587 of 1987 dismissing those writ petitions which were filed challenging the validity, of the land acquisition proceedings taken out for public purpose, viz. for the creation of a new neighbourhood known as Kalaignar Karunanidhi Nagar.</p><p>2. The brief facts of the case are as follows : A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was made on 29.8.1975, and it was published in the Gazette on 1.10.1975. The property was originally owned by one Noorudeen and Saradambal. The daughters of Noorudeen are the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 8586 and 8587 of 1987 (which were heard by the learned single Judge). On 4.3.1975, the daughters of Noorudeen entered into an agreement for sale of the property to one Sundaram. After the publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, the said Sundaram and the petitioners in the two writ petitions executed an agreement for sale in favour of Selliamman Koil Co-operative House Site Society Ltd., which was the petitioner in W.P. No. 2344 of 1983. The daughters of Noorudeen filed their objections, objecting to the acquisition during the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. Overruling the objections, the Collector recommended the acquisition to be proceeded with. Thereupon, the Government accepted the recommendation of the Collector and issued a declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 29.9.1978. After the proceedings under Sections 9(2) and 10, the awards had been passed on 28.2.1983 and 30.5.1983 in respect of parcels of the lands under acquisition. Mohan, J., who heard the writ petitions along with W.P. No. 2344 of 1986 filed by Selliamman Koil Co-operative House Site Society Ltd., after elaborately considering all the contentions raised before him, has dismissed these two writ petitions. Hence, these appeals. It cannot be gainsaid that these appellants have preferred the two writ petitions after a delay of 12 years reckoned from the date of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act or 9 years reckoned from the date of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act. They have not made any statement as to why they had approached this Court after such a long delay. As rightly pointed out by the learned single Judge, the appellants might have thought that; they having agreed to sell the property in favour of the Society, the Society would fight against the acquisition proceedings.</p><p>3. Mr. K. Ramamurthi, learned Counsel for the appellants, contending that the Court should take a liberal attitude in condonation of the delay and that this delay in the appellants approaching the Court should not stand in the way of granting the relief sought for by them, relied upon a decision of. the Supreme Court in Collector. Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji : (1987)ILLJ500SC , In that case, there was a delay of four days, and the said delay had not been condoned by the High Court. While dealing with such a situation, the Supreme Court has stated thus:</p><p>'Every day's delay must be explained does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made xxx xxx xxx</p><p>When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay.</p><p>In our view, the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in that case having regard to the facts of the case cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case in which, as pointed out earlier, there is a long delay of 12 years from the date of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and 9 years from the date of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act.</p><p>4. In this connection, we would like to point out that the Supreme Court in Hari Singh v. State of U.P. : [1984]3SCR417 , has dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay of 2-1/2 years. In the present case, the appellants had every knowledge of the acquisition since they admittedly filed their objections during the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act which was held on 10.12.1975 and 12.12.1975. Yet it did not occur to them that they should question the acquisition. As rightly pointed out by the learned Judge, probably these two appellants wanted somebody else to fight the battle.</p><p>5. Learned Counsel now states that the land acquired is proposed to be used for some purpose other than the one for which it was acquired. But he would fairly concede that there is no notification to that effect. The decision cited by the learned Counsel in Special Deputy Collector and Land Acquisition Officer, Salem Steel Plant, Salem v. Kuppu Gounder 1985 T.L.N.J. 284, in support of his contention cannot be of any help in this case since admittedly there is no notification that this land is going to be utilised for a purpose other than the one for which it was acquired. Under these circumstances, we see no merit in these appeals. These writ appeals are dismissed.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '(1987)2MLJ280', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Commissioner and Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Dep', 'sub' => 'Property', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'mymon-bi-vs-represented-commissioner' $args = array( (int) 0 => '793075', (int) 1 => 'mymon-bi-vs-represented-commissioner' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/793075/mymon-bi-vs-represented-commissioner' $ctype = ' High Court' $caseref = 'Salem v. Kuppu Gounder<br>'include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]ratnavel pandian, j.1. these two appeals are preferred against the order of mohan, j., made in w.p. nos. 8586 and 8587 of 1987 dismissing those writ petitions which were filed challenging the validity, of the land acquisition proceedings taken out for public purpose, viz. for the creation of a new neighbourhood known as kalaignar karunanidhi nagar.2. the brief facts of the case are as follows : a notification under section 4(1) of the land acquisition act (hereinafter referred to as the act) was made on 29.8.1975, and it was published in the gazette on 1.10.1975. the property was originally owned by one noorudeen and saradambal. the daughters of noorudeen are the petitioners in w.p. nos. 8586 and 8587 of 1987 (which were heard by the learned single judge). on 4.3.1975, the daughters of.....Code Context}//highest occurence of word in the judgementecho $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Mymon Bi and anr Vs State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Commissioner and Secretary Housing and Urban Development Department and anr - Citation 793075 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '793075', 'acts' => '', 'appealno' => '', 'appellant' => 'Mymon Bi and anr.', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Mymon Bi and anr. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Commissioner and Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department and anr.', 'casenote' => ' - - Overruling the objections, the Collector recommended the acquisition to be proceeded with. 4. In this connection, we would like to point out that the Supreme Court in Hari Singh v.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'Salem v. Kuppu Gounder;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => '', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Chennai', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1987-11-19', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => '', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Ratnavel Pandian, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. These two appeals are preferred against the order of Mohan, J., made in W.P. Nos. 8586 and 8587 of 1987 dismissing those writ petitions which were filed challenging the validity, of the land acquisition proceedings taken out for public purpose, viz. for the creation of a new neighbourhood known as Kalaignar Karunanidhi Nagar.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The brief facts of the case are as follows : A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was made on 29.8.1975, and it was published in the Gazette on 1.10.1975. The property was originally owned by one Noorudeen and Saradambal. The daughters of Noorudeen are the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 8586 and 8587 of 1987 (which were heard by the learned single Judge). On 4.3.1975, the daughters of Noorudeen entered into an agreement for sale of the property to one Sundaram. After the publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, the said Sundaram and the petitioners in the two writ petitions executed an agreement for sale in favour of Selliamman Koil Co-operative House Site Society Ltd., which was the petitioner in W.P. No. 2344 of 1983. The daughters of Noorudeen filed their objections, objecting to the acquisition during the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. Overruling the objections, the Collector recommended the acquisition to be proceeded with. Thereupon, the Government accepted the recommendation of the Collector and issued a declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 29.9.1978. After the proceedings under Sections 9(2) and 10, the awards had been passed on 28.2.1983 and 30.5.1983 in respect of parcels of the lands under acquisition. Mohan, J., who heard the writ petitions along with W.P. No. 2344 of 1986 filed by Selliamman Koil Co-operative House Site Society Ltd., after elaborately considering all the contentions raised before him, has dismissed these two writ petitions. Hence, these appeals. It cannot be gainsaid that these appellants have preferred the two writ petitions after a delay of 12 years reckoned from the date of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act or 9 years reckoned from the date of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act. They have not made any statement as to why they had approached this Court after such a long delay. As rightly pointed out by the learned single Judge, the appellants might have thought that; they having agreed to sell the property in favour of the Society, the Society would fight against the acquisition proceedings.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Mr. K. Ramamurthi, learned Counsel for the appellants, contending that the Court should take a liberal attitude in condonation of the delay and that this delay in the appellants approaching the Court should not stand in the way of granting the relief sought for by them, relied upon a decision of. the Supreme Court in Collector. Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji : (1987)ILLJ500SC , In that case, there was a delay of four days, and the said delay had not been condoned by the High Court. While dealing with such a situation, the Supreme Court has stated thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Every day's delay must be explained does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made xxx xxx xxx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In our view, the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in that case having regard to the facts of the case cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case in which, as pointed out earlier, there is a long delay of 12 years from the date of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and 9 years from the date of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In this connection, we would like to point out that the Supreme Court in Hari Singh v. State of U.P. : [1984]3SCR417 , has dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay of 2-1/2 years. In the present case, the appellants had every knowledge of the acquisition since they admittedly filed their objections during the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act which was held on 10.12.1975 and 12.12.1975. Yet it did not occur to them that they should question the acquisition. As rightly pointed out by the learned Judge, probably these two appellants wanted somebody else to fight the battle.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Learned Counsel now states that the land acquired is proposed to be used for some purpose other than the one for which it was acquired. But he would fairly concede that there is no notification to that effect. The decision cited by the learned Counsel in Special Deputy Collector and Land Acquisition Officer, Salem Steel Plant, Salem v. Kuppu Gounder 1985 T.L.N.J. 284, in support of his contention cannot be of any help in this case since admittedly there is no notification that this land is going to be utilised for a purpose other than the one for which it was acquired. Under these circumstances, we see no merit in these appeals. These writ appeals are dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '(1987)2MLJ280', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Commissioner and Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Dep', 'sub' => 'Property', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'mymon-bi-vs-represented-commissioner', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '793075', (int) 1 => 'mymon-bi-vs-represented-commissioner' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Mymon Bi and anr Vs State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Commissioner and Secretary Housing and Urban Development Department and anr - Citation 793075 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '793075', 'acts' => '', 'appealno' => '', 'appellant' => 'Mymon Bi and anr.', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Mymon Bi and anr. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Commissioner and Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department and anr.', 'casenote' => ' - - Overruling the objections, the Collector recommended the acquisition to be proceeded with. 4. In this connection, we would like to point out that the Supreme Court in Hari Singh v.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'Salem v. Kuppu Gounder;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => '', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Chennai', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1987-11-19', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => '', 'judgement' => '<p>Ratnavel Pandian, J.</p><p>1. These two appeals are preferred against the order of Mohan, J., made in W.P. Nos. 8586 and 8587 of 1987 dismissing those writ petitions which were filed challenging the validity, of the land acquisition proceedings taken out for public purpose, viz. for the creation of a new neighbourhood known as Kalaignar Karunanidhi Nagar.</p><p>2. The brief facts of the case are as follows : A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was made on 29.8.1975, and it was published in the Gazette on 1.10.1975. The property was originally owned by one Noorudeen and Saradambal. The daughters of Noorudeen are the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 8586 and 8587 of 1987 (which were heard by the learned single Judge). On 4.3.1975, the daughters of Noorudeen entered into an agreement for sale of the property to one Sundaram. After the publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, the said Sundaram and the petitioners in the two writ petitions executed an agreement for sale in favour of Selliamman Koil Co-operative House Site Society Ltd., which was the petitioner in W.P. No. 2344 of 1983. The daughters of Noorudeen filed their objections, objecting to the acquisition during the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. Overruling the objections, the Collector recommended the acquisition to be proceeded with. Thereupon, the Government accepted the recommendation of the Collector and issued a declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 29.9.1978. After the proceedings under Sections 9(2) and 10, the awards had been passed on 28.2.1983 and 30.5.1983 in respect of parcels of the lands under acquisition. Mohan, J., who heard the writ petitions along with W.P. No. 2344 of 1986 filed by Selliamman Koil Co-operative House Site Society Ltd., after elaborately considering all the contentions raised before him, has dismissed these two writ petitions. Hence, these appeals. It cannot be gainsaid that these appellants have preferred the two writ petitions after a delay of 12 years reckoned from the date of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act or 9 years reckoned from the date of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act. They have not made any statement as to why they had approached this Court after such a long delay. As rightly pointed out by the learned single Judge, the appellants might have thought that; they having agreed to sell the property in favour of the Society, the Society would fight against the acquisition proceedings.</p><p>3. Mr. K. Ramamurthi, learned Counsel for the appellants, contending that the Court should take a liberal attitude in condonation of the delay and that this delay in the appellants approaching the Court should not stand in the way of granting the relief sought for by them, relied upon a decision of. the Supreme Court in Collector. Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji : (1987)ILLJ500SC , In that case, there was a delay of four days, and the said delay had not been condoned by the High Court. While dealing with such a situation, the Supreme Court has stated thus:</p><p>'Every day's delay must be explained does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made xxx xxx xxx</p><p>When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay.</p><p>In our view, the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in that case having regard to the facts of the case cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case in which, as pointed out earlier, there is a long delay of 12 years from the date of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and 9 years from the date of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act.</p><p>4. In this connection, we would like to point out that the Supreme Court in Hari Singh v. State of U.P. : [1984]3SCR417 , has dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay of 2-1/2 years. In the present case, the appellants had every knowledge of the acquisition since they admittedly filed their objections during the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act which was held on 10.12.1975 and 12.12.1975. Yet it did not occur to them that they should question the acquisition. As rightly pointed out by the learned Judge, probably these two appellants wanted somebody else to fight the battle.</p><p>5. Learned Counsel now states that the land acquired is proposed to be used for some purpose other than the one for which it was acquired. But he would fairly concede that there is no notification to that effect. The decision cited by the learned Counsel in Special Deputy Collector and Land Acquisition Officer, Salem Steel Plant, Salem v. Kuppu Gounder 1985 T.L.N.J. 284, in support of his contention cannot be of any help in this case since admittedly there is no notification that this land is going to be utilised for a purpose other than the one for which it was acquired. Under these circumstances, we see no merit in these appeals. These writ appeals are dismissed.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '(1987)2MLJ280', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Commissioner and Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Dep', 'sub' => 'Property', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'mymon-bi-vs-represented-commissioner' $args = array( (int) 0 => '793075', (int) 1 => 'mymon-bi-vs-represented-commissioner' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/793075/mymon-bi-vs-represented-commissioner' $ctype = ' High Court' $caseref = 'Salem v. Kuppu Gounder<br>'include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Mymon Bi and anr Vs State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Commissioner and Secretary Housing and Urban Development Department and anr - Citation 793075 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '793075', 'acts' => '', 'appealno' => '', 'appellant' => 'Mymon Bi and anr.', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Mymon Bi and anr. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Commissioner and Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department and anr.', 'casenote' => ' - - Overruling the objections, the Collector recommended the acquisition to be proceeded with. 4. In this connection, we would like to point out that the Supreme Court in Hari Singh v.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'Salem v. Kuppu Gounder;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => '', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Chennai', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1987-11-19', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => '', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Ratnavel Pandian, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. These two appeals are preferred against the order of Mohan, J., made in W.P. Nos. 8586 and 8587 of 1987 dismissing those writ petitions which were filed challenging the validity, of the land acquisition proceedings taken out for public purpose, viz. for the creation of a new neighbourhood known as Kalaignar Karunanidhi Nagar.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The brief facts of the case are as follows : A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was made on 29.8.1975, and it was published in the Gazette on 1.10.1975. The property was originally owned by one Noorudeen and Saradambal. The daughters of Noorudeen are the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 8586 and 8587 of 1987 (which were heard by the learned single Judge). On 4.3.1975, the daughters of Noorudeen entered into an agreement for sale of the property to one Sundaram. After the publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, the said Sundaram and the petitioners in the two writ petitions executed an agreement for sale in favour of Selliamman Koil Co-operative House Site Society Ltd., which was the petitioner in W.P. No. 2344 of 1983. The daughters of Noorudeen filed their objections, objecting to the acquisition during the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. Overruling the objections, the Collector recommended the acquisition to be proceeded with. Thereupon, the Government accepted the recommendation of the Collector and issued a declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 29.9.1978. After the proceedings under Sections 9(2) and 10, the awards had been passed on 28.2.1983 and 30.5.1983 in respect of parcels of the lands under acquisition. Mohan, J., who heard the writ petitions along with W.P. No. 2344 of 1986 filed by Selliamman Koil Co-operative House Site Society Ltd., after elaborately considering all the contentions raised before him, has dismissed these two writ petitions. Hence, these appeals. It cannot be gainsaid that these appellants have preferred the two writ petitions after a delay of 12 years reckoned from the date of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act or 9 years reckoned from the date of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act. They have not made any statement as to why they had approached this Court after such a long delay. As rightly pointed out by the learned single Judge, the appellants might have thought that; they having agreed to sell the property in favour of the Society, the Society would fight against the acquisition proceedings.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Mr. K. Ramamurthi, learned Counsel for the appellants, contending that the Court should take a liberal attitude in condonation of the delay and that this delay in the appellants approaching the Court should not stand in the way of granting the relief sought for by them, relied upon a decision of. the Supreme Court in Collector. Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji : (1987)ILLJ500SC , In that case, there was a delay of four days, and the said delay had not been condoned by the High Court. While dealing with such a situation, the Supreme Court has stated thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Every day's delay must be explained does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made xxx xxx xxx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In our view, the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in that case having regard to the facts of the case cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case in which, as pointed out earlier, there is a long delay of 12 years from the date of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and 9 years from the date of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In this connection, we would like to point out that the Supreme Court in Hari Singh v. State of U.P. : [1984]3SCR417 , has dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay of 2-1/2 years. In the present case, the appellants had every knowledge of the acquisition since they admittedly filed their objections during the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act which was held on 10.12.1975 and 12.12.1975. Yet it did not occur to them that they should question the acquisition. As rightly pointed out by the learned Judge, probably these two appellants wanted somebody else to fight the battle.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Learned Counsel now states that the land acquired is proposed to be used for some purpose other than the one for which it was acquired. But he would fairly concede that there is no notification to that effect. The decision cited by the learned Counsel in Special Deputy Collector and Land Acquisition Officer, Salem Steel Plant, Salem v. Kuppu Gounder 1985 T.L.N.J. 284, in support of his contention cannot be of any help in this case since admittedly there is no notification that this land is going to be utilised for a purpose other than the one for which it was acquired. Under these circumstances, we see no merit in these appeals. These writ appeals are dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '(1987)2MLJ280', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Commissioner and Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Dep', 'sub' => 'Property', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'mymon-bi-vs-represented-commissioner', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '793075', (int) 1 => 'mymon-bi-vs-represented-commissioner' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Mymon Bi and anr Vs State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Commissioner and Secretary Housing and Urban Development Department and anr - Citation 793075 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '793075', 'acts' => '', 'appealno' => '', 'appellant' => 'Mymon Bi and anr.', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Mymon Bi and anr. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Commissioner and Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department and anr.', 'casenote' => ' - - Overruling the objections, the Collector recommended the acquisition to be proceeded with. 4. In this connection, we would like to point out that the Supreme Court in Hari Singh v.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'Salem v. Kuppu Gounder;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => '', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Chennai', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1987-11-19', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => '', 'judgement' => '<p>Ratnavel Pandian, J.</p><p>1. These two appeals are preferred against the order of Mohan, J., made in W.P. Nos. 8586 and 8587 of 1987 dismissing those writ petitions which were filed challenging the validity, of the land acquisition proceedings taken out for public purpose, viz. for the creation of a new neighbourhood known as Kalaignar Karunanidhi Nagar.</p><p>2. The brief facts of the case are as follows : A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was made on 29.8.1975, and it was published in the Gazette on 1.10.1975. The property was originally owned by one Noorudeen and Saradambal. The daughters of Noorudeen are the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 8586 and 8587 of 1987 (which were heard by the learned single Judge). On 4.3.1975, the daughters of Noorudeen entered into an agreement for sale of the property to one Sundaram. After the publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, the said Sundaram and the petitioners in the two writ petitions executed an agreement for sale in favour of Selliamman Koil Co-operative House Site Society Ltd., which was the petitioner in W.P. No. 2344 of 1983. The daughters of Noorudeen filed their objections, objecting to the acquisition during the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. Overruling the objections, the Collector recommended the acquisition to be proceeded with. Thereupon, the Government accepted the recommendation of the Collector and issued a declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 29.9.1978. After the proceedings under Sections 9(2) and 10, the awards had been passed on 28.2.1983 and 30.5.1983 in respect of parcels of the lands under acquisition. Mohan, J., who heard the writ petitions along with W.P. No. 2344 of 1986 filed by Selliamman Koil Co-operative House Site Society Ltd., after elaborately considering all the contentions raised before him, has dismissed these two writ petitions. Hence, these appeals. It cannot be gainsaid that these appellants have preferred the two writ petitions after a delay of 12 years reckoned from the date of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act or 9 years reckoned from the date of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act. They have not made any statement as to why they had approached this Court after such a long delay. As rightly pointed out by the learned single Judge, the appellants might have thought that; they having agreed to sell the property in favour of the Society, the Society would fight against the acquisition proceedings.</p><p>3. Mr. K. Ramamurthi, learned Counsel for the appellants, contending that the Court should take a liberal attitude in condonation of the delay and that this delay in the appellants approaching the Court should not stand in the way of granting the relief sought for by them, relied upon a decision of. the Supreme Court in Collector. Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji : (1987)ILLJ500SC , In that case, there was a delay of four days, and the said delay had not been condoned by the High Court. While dealing with such a situation, the Supreme Court has stated thus:</p><p>'Every day's delay must be explained does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made xxx xxx xxx</p><p>When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay.</p><p>In our view, the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in that case having regard to the facts of the case cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case in which, as pointed out earlier, there is a long delay of 12 years from the date of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and 9 years from the date of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act.</p><p>4. In this connection, we would like to point out that the Supreme Court in Hari Singh v. State of U.P. : [1984]3SCR417 , has dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay of 2-1/2 years. In the present case, the appellants had every knowledge of the acquisition since they admittedly filed their objections during the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act which was held on 10.12.1975 and 12.12.1975. Yet it did not occur to them that they should question the acquisition. As rightly pointed out by the learned Judge, probably these two appellants wanted somebody else to fight the battle.</p><p>5. Learned Counsel now states that the land acquired is proposed to be used for some purpose other than the one for which it was acquired. But he would fairly concede that there is no notification to that effect. The decision cited by the learned Counsel in Special Deputy Collector and Land Acquisition Officer, Salem Steel Plant, Salem v. Kuppu Gounder 1985 T.L.N.J. 284, in support of his contention cannot be of any help in this case since admittedly there is no notification that this land is going to be utilised for a purpose other than the one for which it was acquired. Under these circumstances, we see no merit in these appeals. These writ appeals are dismissed.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '(1987)2MLJ280', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Commissioner and Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Dep', 'sub' => 'Property', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'mymon-bi-vs-represented-commissioner' $args = array( (int) 0 => '793075', (int) 1 => 'mymon-bi-vs-represented-commissioner' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/793075/mymon-bi-vs-represented-commissioner' $ctype = ' High Court' $caseref = 'Salem v. Kuppu Gounder<br>' $content = array( (int) 0 => '<p>Ratnavel Pandian, J.', (int) 1 => '<p>1. These two appeals are preferred against the order of Mohan, J., made in W.P. Nos. 8586 and 8587 of 1987 dismissing those writ petitions which were filed challenging the validity, of the land acquisition proceedings taken out for public purpose, viz. for the creation of a new neighbourhood known as Kalaignar Karunanidhi Nagar.', (int) 2 => '<p>2. The brief facts of the case are as follows : A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was made on 29.8.1975, and it was published in the Gazette on 1.10.1975. The property was originally owned by one Noorudeen and Saradambal. The daughters of Noorudeen are the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 8586 and 8587 of 1987 (which were heard by the learned single Judge). On 4.3.1975, the daughters of Noorudeen entered into an agreement for sale of the property to one Sundaram. After the publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, the said Sundaram and the petitioners in the two writ petitions executed an agreement for sale in favour of Selliamman Koil Co-operative House Site Society Ltd., which was the petitioner in W.P. No. 2344 of 1983. The daughters of Noorudeen filed their objections, objecting to the acquisition during the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. Overruling the objections, the Collector recommended the acquisition to be proceeded with. Thereupon, the Government accepted the recommendation of the Collector and issued a declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 29.9.1978. After the proceedings under Sections 9(2) and 10, the awards had been passed on 28.2.1983 and 30.5.1983 in respect of parcels of the lands under acquisition. Mohan, J., who heard the writ petitions along with W.P. No. 2344 of 1986 filed by Selliamman Koil Co-operative House Site Society Ltd., after elaborately considering all the contentions raised before him, has dismissed these two writ petitions. Hence, these appeals. It cannot be gainsaid that these appellants have preferred the two writ petitions after a delay of 12 years reckoned from the date of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act or 9 years reckoned from the date of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act. They have not made any statement as to why they had approached this Court after such a long delay. As rightly pointed out by the learned single Judge, the appellants might have thought that; they having agreed to sell the property in favour of the Society, the Society would fight against the acquisition proceedings.', (int) 3 => '<p>3. Mr. K. Ramamurthi, learned Counsel for the appellants, contending that the Court should take a liberal attitude in condonation of the delay and that this delay in the appellants approaching the Court should not stand in the way of granting the relief sought for by them, relied upon a decision of. the Supreme Court in Collector. Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji : (1987)ILLJ500SC , In that case, there was a delay of four days, and the said delay had not been condoned by the High Court. While dealing with such a situation, the Supreme Court has stated thus:', (int) 4 => '<p>'Every day's delay must be explained does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made xxx xxx xxx', (int) 5 => '<p>When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay.', (int) 6 => '<p>In our view, the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in that case having regard to the facts of the case cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case in which, as pointed out earlier, there is a long delay of 12 years from the date of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and 9 years from the date of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act.', (int) 7 => '<p>4. In this connection, we would like to point out that the Supreme Court in Hari Singh v. State of U.P. : [1984]3SCR417 , has dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay of 2-1/2 years. In the present case, the appellants had every knowledge of the acquisition since they admittedly filed their objections during the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act which was held on 10.12.1975 and 12.12.1975. Yet it did not occur to them that they should question the acquisition. As rightly pointed out by the learned Judge, probably these two appellants wanted somebody else to fight the battle.', (int) 8 => '<p>5. Learned Counsel now states that the land acquired is proposed to be used for some purpose other than the one for which it was acquired. But he would fairly concede that there is no notification to that effect. The decision cited by the learned Counsel in Special Deputy Collector and Land Acquisition Officer, Salem Steel Plant, Salem v. Kuppu Gounder 1985 T.L.N.J. 284, in support of his contention cannot be of any help in this case since admittedly there is no notification that this land is going to be utilised for a purpose other than the one for which it was acquired. Under these circumstances, we see no merit in these appeals. These writ appeals are dismissed.<p>', (int) 9 => '<p>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 10 $i = (int) 0include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Ratnavel Pandian, J.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Mymon Bi and anr Vs State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Commissioner and Secretary Housing and Urban Development Department and anr - Citation 793075 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '793075', 'acts' => '', 'appealno' => '', 'appellant' => 'Mymon Bi and anr.', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Mymon Bi and anr. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Commissioner and Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department and anr.', 'casenote' => ' - - Overruling the objections, the Collector recommended the acquisition to be proceeded with. 4. In this connection, we would like to point out that the Supreme Court in Hari Singh v.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'Salem v. Kuppu Gounder;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => '', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Chennai', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1987-11-19', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => '', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Ratnavel Pandian, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. These two appeals are preferred against the order of Mohan, J., made in W.P. Nos. 8586 and 8587 of 1987 dismissing those writ petitions which were filed challenging the validity, of the land acquisition proceedings taken out for public purpose, viz. for the creation of a new neighbourhood known as Kalaignar Karunanidhi Nagar.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The brief facts of the case are as follows : A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was made on 29.8.1975, and it was published in the Gazette on 1.10.1975. The property was originally owned by one Noorudeen and Saradambal. The daughters of Noorudeen are the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 8586 and 8587 of 1987 (which were heard by the learned single Judge). On 4.3.1975, the daughters of Noorudeen entered into an agreement for sale of the property to one Sundaram. After the publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, the said Sundaram and the petitioners in the two writ petitions executed an agreement for sale in favour of Selliamman Koil Co-operative House Site Society Ltd., which was the petitioner in W.P. No. 2344 of 1983. The daughters of Noorudeen filed their objections, objecting to the acquisition during the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. Overruling the objections, the Collector recommended the acquisition to be proceeded with. Thereupon, the Government accepted the recommendation of the Collector and issued a declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 29.9.1978. After the proceedings under Sections 9(2) and 10, the awards had been passed on 28.2.1983 and 30.5.1983 in respect of parcels of the lands under acquisition. Mohan, J., who heard the writ petitions along with W.P. No. 2344 of 1986 filed by Selliamman Koil Co-operative House Site Society Ltd., after elaborately considering all the contentions raised before him, has dismissed these two writ petitions. Hence, these appeals. It cannot be gainsaid that these appellants have preferred the two writ petitions after a delay of 12 years reckoned from the date of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act or 9 years reckoned from the date of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act. They have not made any statement as to why they had approached this Court after such a long delay. As rightly pointed out by the learned single Judge, the appellants might have thought that; they having agreed to sell the property in favour of the Society, the Society would fight against the acquisition proceedings.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Mr. K. Ramamurthi, learned Counsel for the appellants, contending that the Court should take a liberal attitude in condonation of the delay and that this delay in the appellants approaching the Court should not stand in the way of granting the relief sought for by them, relied upon a decision of. the Supreme Court in Collector. Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji : (1987)ILLJ500SC , In that case, there was a delay of four days, and the said delay had not been condoned by the High Court. While dealing with such a situation, the Supreme Court has stated thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Every day's delay must be explained does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made xxx xxx xxx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In our view, the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in that case having regard to the facts of the case cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case in which, as pointed out earlier, there is a long delay of 12 years from the date of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and 9 years from the date of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In this connection, we would like to point out that the Supreme Court in Hari Singh v. State of U.P. : [1984]3SCR417 , has dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay of 2-1/2 years. In the present case, the appellants had every knowledge of the acquisition since they admittedly filed their objections during the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act which was held on 10.12.1975 and 12.12.1975. Yet it did not occur to them that they should question the acquisition. As rightly pointed out by the learned Judge, probably these two appellants wanted somebody else to fight the battle.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Learned Counsel now states that the land acquired is proposed to be used for some purpose other than the one for which it was acquired. But he would fairly concede that there is no notification to that effect. The decision cited by the learned Counsel in Special Deputy Collector and Land Acquisition Officer, Salem Steel Plant, Salem v. Kuppu Gounder 1985 T.L.N.J. 284, in support of his contention cannot be of any help in this case since admittedly there is no notification that this land is going to be utilised for a purpose other than the one for which it was acquired. Under these circumstances, we see no merit in these appeals. These writ appeals are dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '(1987)2MLJ280', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Commissioner and Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Dep', 'sub' => 'Property', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'mymon-bi-vs-represented-commissioner', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '793075', (int) 1 => 'mymon-bi-vs-represented-commissioner' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Mymon Bi and anr Vs State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Commissioner and Secretary Housing and Urban Development Department and anr - Citation 793075 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '793075', 'acts' => '', 'appealno' => '', 'appellant' => 'Mymon Bi and anr.', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Mymon Bi and anr. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Commissioner and Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department and anr.', 'casenote' => ' - - Overruling the objections, the Collector recommended the acquisition to be proceeded with. 4. In this connection, we would like to point out that the Supreme Court in Hari Singh v.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'Salem v. Kuppu Gounder;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => '', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Chennai', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1987-11-19', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => '', 'judgement' => '<p>Ratnavel Pandian, J.</p><p>1. These two appeals are preferred against the order of Mohan, J., made in W.P. Nos. 8586 and 8587 of 1987 dismissing those writ petitions which were filed challenging the validity, of the land acquisition proceedings taken out for public purpose, viz. for the creation of a new neighbourhood known as Kalaignar Karunanidhi Nagar.</p><p>2. The brief facts of the case are as follows : A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was made on 29.8.1975, and it was published in the Gazette on 1.10.1975. The property was originally owned by one Noorudeen and Saradambal. The daughters of Noorudeen are the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 8586 and 8587 of 1987 (which were heard by the learned single Judge). On 4.3.1975, the daughters of Noorudeen entered into an agreement for sale of the property to one Sundaram. After the publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, the said Sundaram and the petitioners in the two writ petitions executed an agreement for sale in favour of Selliamman Koil Co-operative House Site Society Ltd., which was the petitioner in W.P. No. 2344 of 1983. The daughters of Noorudeen filed their objections, objecting to the acquisition during the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. Overruling the objections, the Collector recommended the acquisition to be proceeded with. Thereupon, the Government accepted the recommendation of the Collector and issued a declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 29.9.1978. After the proceedings under Sections 9(2) and 10, the awards had been passed on 28.2.1983 and 30.5.1983 in respect of parcels of the lands under acquisition. Mohan, J., who heard the writ petitions along with W.P. No. 2344 of 1986 filed by Selliamman Koil Co-operative House Site Society Ltd., after elaborately considering all the contentions raised before him, has dismissed these two writ petitions. Hence, these appeals. It cannot be gainsaid that these appellants have preferred the two writ petitions after a delay of 12 years reckoned from the date of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act or 9 years reckoned from the date of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act. They have not made any statement as to why they had approached this Court after such a long delay. As rightly pointed out by the learned single Judge, the appellants might have thought that; they having agreed to sell the property in favour of the Society, the Society would fight against the acquisition proceedings.</p><p>3. Mr. K. Ramamurthi, learned Counsel for the appellants, contending that the Court should take a liberal attitude in condonation of the delay and that this delay in the appellants approaching the Court should not stand in the way of granting the relief sought for by them, relied upon a decision of. the Supreme Court in Collector. Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji : (1987)ILLJ500SC , In that case, there was a delay of four days, and the said delay had not been condoned by the High Court. While dealing with such a situation, the Supreme Court has stated thus:</p><p>'Every day's delay must be explained does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made xxx xxx xxx</p><p>When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay.</p><p>In our view, the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in that case having regard to the facts of the case cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case in which, as pointed out earlier, there is a long delay of 12 years from the date of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and 9 years from the date of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act.</p><p>4. In this connection, we would like to point out that the Supreme Court in Hari Singh v. State of U.P. : [1984]3SCR417 , has dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay of 2-1/2 years. In the present case, the appellants had every knowledge of the acquisition since they admittedly filed their objections during the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act which was held on 10.12.1975 and 12.12.1975. Yet it did not occur to them that they should question the acquisition. As rightly pointed out by the learned Judge, probably these two appellants wanted somebody else to fight the battle.</p><p>5. Learned Counsel now states that the land acquired is proposed to be used for some purpose other than the one for which it was acquired. But he would fairly concede that there is no notification to that effect. The decision cited by the learned Counsel in Special Deputy Collector and Land Acquisition Officer, Salem Steel Plant, Salem v. Kuppu Gounder 1985 T.L.N.J. 284, in support of his contention cannot be of any help in this case since admittedly there is no notification that this land is going to be utilised for a purpose other than the one for which it was acquired. Under these circumstances, we see no merit in these appeals. These writ appeals are dismissed.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '(1987)2MLJ280', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Commissioner and Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Dep', 'sub' => 'Property', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'mymon-bi-vs-represented-commissioner' $args = array( (int) 0 => '793075', (int) 1 => 'mymon-bi-vs-represented-commissioner' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/793075/mymon-bi-vs-represented-commissioner' $ctype = ' High Court' $caseref = 'Salem v. Kuppu Gounder<br>' $content = array( (int) 0 => '<p>Ratnavel Pandian, J.', (int) 1 => '<p>1. These two appeals are preferred against the order of Mohan, J., made in W.P. Nos. 8586 and 8587 of 1987 dismissing those writ petitions which were filed challenging the validity, of the land acquisition proceedings taken out for public purpose, viz. for the creation of a new neighbourhood known as Kalaignar Karunanidhi Nagar.', (int) 2 => '<p>2. The brief facts of the case are as follows : A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was made on 29.8.1975, and it was published in the Gazette on 1.10.1975. The property was originally owned by one Noorudeen and Saradambal. The daughters of Noorudeen are the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 8586 and 8587 of 1987 (which were heard by the learned single Judge). On 4.3.1975, the daughters of Noorudeen entered into an agreement for sale of the property to one Sundaram. After the publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, the said Sundaram and the petitioners in the two writ petitions executed an agreement for sale in favour of Selliamman Koil Co-operative House Site Society Ltd., which was the petitioner in W.P. No. 2344 of 1983. The daughters of Noorudeen filed their objections, objecting to the acquisition during the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. Overruling the objections, the Collector recommended the acquisition to be proceeded with. Thereupon, the Government accepted the recommendation of the Collector and issued a declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 29.9.1978. After the proceedings under Sections 9(2) and 10, the awards had been passed on 28.2.1983 and 30.5.1983 in respect of parcels of the lands under acquisition. Mohan, J., who heard the writ petitions along with W.P. No. 2344 of 1986 filed by Selliamman Koil Co-operative House Site Society Ltd., after elaborately considering all the contentions raised before him, has dismissed these two writ petitions. Hence, these appeals. It cannot be gainsaid that these appellants have preferred the two writ petitions after a delay of 12 years reckoned from the date of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act or 9 years reckoned from the date of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act. They have not made any statement as to why they had approached this Court after such a long delay. As rightly pointed out by the learned single Judge, the appellants might have thought that; they having agreed to sell the property in favour of the Society, the Society would fight against the acquisition proceedings.', (int) 3 => '<p>3. Mr. K. Ramamurthi, learned Counsel for the appellants, contending that the Court should take a liberal attitude in condonation of the delay and that this delay in the appellants approaching the Court should not stand in the way of granting the relief sought for by them, relied upon a decision of. the Supreme Court in Collector. Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji : (1987)ILLJ500SC , In that case, there was a delay of four days, and the said delay had not been condoned by the High Court. While dealing with such a situation, the Supreme Court has stated thus:', (int) 4 => '<p>'Every day's delay must be explained does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made xxx xxx xxx', (int) 5 => '<p>When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay.', (int) 6 => '<p>In our view, the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in that case having regard to the facts of the case cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case in which, as pointed out earlier, there is a long delay of 12 years from the date of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and 9 years from the date of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act.', (int) 7 => '<p>4. In this connection, we would like to point out that the Supreme Court in Hari Singh v. State of U.P. : [1984]3SCR417 , has dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay of 2-1/2 years. In the present case, the appellants had every knowledge of the acquisition since they admittedly filed their objections during the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act which was held on 10.12.1975 and 12.12.1975. Yet it did not occur to them that they should question the acquisition. As rightly pointed out by the learned Judge, probably these two appellants wanted somebody else to fight the battle.', (int) 8 => '<p>5. Learned Counsel now states that the land acquired is proposed to be used for some purpose other than the one for which it was acquired. But he would fairly concede that there is no notification to that effect. The decision cited by the learned Counsel in Special Deputy Collector and Land Acquisition Officer, Salem Steel Plant, Salem v. Kuppu Gounder 1985 T.L.N.J. 284, in support of his contention cannot be of any help in this case since admittedly there is no notification that this land is going to be utilised for a purpose other than the one for which it was acquired. Under these circumstances, we see no merit in these appeals. These writ appeals are dismissed.<p>', (int) 9 => '<p>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 10 $i = (int) 1include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
1. These two appeals are preferred against the order of Mohan, J., made in W.P. Nos. 8586 and 8587 of 1987 dismissing those writ petitions which were filed challenging the validity, of the land acquisition proceedings taken out for public purpose, viz. for the creation of a new neighbourhood known as Kalaignar Karunanidhi Nagar.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Mymon Bi and anr Vs State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Commissioner and Secretary Housing and Urban Development Department and anr - Citation 793075 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '793075', 'acts' => '', 'appealno' => '', 'appellant' => 'Mymon Bi and anr.', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Mymon Bi and anr. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Commissioner and Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department and anr.', 'casenote' => ' - - Overruling the objections, the Collector recommended the acquisition to be proceeded with. 4. In this connection, we would like to point out that the Supreme Court in Hari Singh v.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'Salem v. Kuppu Gounder;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => '', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Chennai', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1987-11-19', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => '', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Ratnavel Pandian, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. These two appeals are preferred against the order of Mohan, J., made in W.P. Nos. 8586 and 8587 of 1987 dismissing those writ petitions which were filed challenging the validity, of the land acquisition proceedings taken out for public purpose, viz. for the creation of a new neighbourhood known as Kalaignar Karunanidhi Nagar.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The brief facts of the case are as follows : A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was made on 29.8.1975, and it was published in the Gazette on 1.10.1975. The property was originally owned by one Noorudeen and Saradambal. The daughters of Noorudeen are the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 8586 and 8587 of 1987 (which were heard by the learned single Judge). On 4.3.1975, the daughters of Noorudeen entered into an agreement for sale of the property to one Sundaram. After the publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, the said Sundaram and the petitioners in the two writ petitions executed an agreement for sale in favour of Selliamman Koil Co-operative House Site Society Ltd., which was the petitioner in W.P. No. 2344 of 1983. The daughters of Noorudeen filed their objections, objecting to the acquisition during the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. Overruling the objections, the Collector recommended the acquisition to be proceeded with. Thereupon, the Government accepted the recommendation of the Collector and issued a declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 29.9.1978. After the proceedings under Sections 9(2) and 10, the awards had been passed on 28.2.1983 and 30.5.1983 in respect of parcels of the lands under acquisition. Mohan, J., who heard the writ petitions along with W.P. No. 2344 of 1986 filed by Selliamman Koil Co-operative House Site Society Ltd., after elaborately considering all the contentions raised before him, has dismissed these two writ petitions. Hence, these appeals. It cannot be gainsaid that these appellants have preferred the two writ petitions after a delay of 12 years reckoned from the date of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act or 9 years reckoned from the date of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act. They have not made any statement as to why they had approached this Court after such a long delay. As rightly pointed out by the learned single Judge, the appellants might have thought that; they having agreed to sell the property in favour of the Society, the Society would fight against the acquisition proceedings.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Mr. K. Ramamurthi, learned Counsel for the appellants, contending that the Court should take a liberal attitude in condonation of the delay and that this delay in the appellants approaching the Court should not stand in the way of granting the relief sought for by them, relied upon a decision of. the Supreme Court in Collector. Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji : (1987)ILLJ500SC , In that case, there was a delay of four days, and the said delay had not been condoned by the High Court. While dealing with such a situation, the Supreme Court has stated thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Every day's delay must be explained does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made xxx xxx xxx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In our view, the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in that case having regard to the facts of the case cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case in which, as pointed out earlier, there is a long delay of 12 years from the date of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and 9 years from the date of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In this connection, we would like to point out that the Supreme Court in Hari Singh v. State of U.P. : [1984]3SCR417 , has dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay of 2-1/2 years. In the present case, the appellants had every knowledge of the acquisition since they admittedly filed their objections during the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act which was held on 10.12.1975 and 12.12.1975. Yet it did not occur to them that they should question the acquisition. As rightly pointed out by the learned Judge, probably these two appellants wanted somebody else to fight the battle.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Learned Counsel now states that the land acquired is proposed to be used for some purpose other than the one for which it was acquired. But he would fairly concede that there is no notification to that effect. The decision cited by the learned Counsel in Special Deputy Collector and Land Acquisition Officer, Salem Steel Plant, Salem v. Kuppu Gounder 1985 T.L.N.J. 284, in support of his contention cannot be of any help in this case since admittedly there is no notification that this land is going to be utilised for a purpose other than the one for which it was acquired. Under these circumstances, we see no merit in these appeals. These writ appeals are dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '(1987)2MLJ280', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Commissioner and Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Dep', 'sub' => 'Property', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'mymon-bi-vs-represented-commissioner', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '793075', (int) 1 => 'mymon-bi-vs-represented-commissioner' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Mymon Bi and anr Vs State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Commissioner and Secretary Housing and Urban Development Department and anr - Citation 793075 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '793075', 'acts' => '', 'appealno' => '', 'appellant' => 'Mymon Bi and anr.', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Mymon Bi and anr. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Commissioner and Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department and anr.', 'casenote' => ' - - Overruling the objections, the Collector recommended the acquisition to be proceeded with. 4. In this connection, we would like to point out that the Supreme Court in Hari Singh v.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'Salem v. Kuppu Gounder;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => '', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Chennai', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1987-11-19', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => '', 'judgement' => '<p>Ratnavel Pandian, J.</p><p>1. These two appeals are preferred against the order of Mohan, J., made in W.P. Nos. 8586 and 8587 of 1987 dismissing those writ petitions which were filed challenging the validity, of the land acquisition proceedings taken out for public purpose, viz. for the creation of a new neighbourhood known as Kalaignar Karunanidhi Nagar.</p><p>2. The brief facts of the case are as follows : A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was made on 29.8.1975, and it was published in the Gazette on 1.10.1975. The property was originally owned by one Noorudeen and Saradambal. The daughters of Noorudeen are the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 8586 and 8587 of 1987 (which were heard by the learned single Judge). On 4.3.1975, the daughters of Noorudeen entered into an agreement for sale of the property to one Sundaram. After the publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, the said Sundaram and the petitioners in the two writ petitions executed an agreement for sale in favour of Selliamman Koil Co-operative House Site Society Ltd., which was the petitioner in W.P. No. 2344 of 1983. The daughters of Noorudeen filed their objections, objecting to the acquisition during the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. Overruling the objections, the Collector recommended the acquisition to be proceeded with. Thereupon, the Government accepted the recommendation of the Collector and issued a declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 29.9.1978. After the proceedings under Sections 9(2) and 10, the awards had been passed on 28.2.1983 and 30.5.1983 in respect of parcels of the lands under acquisition. Mohan, J., who heard the writ petitions along with W.P. No. 2344 of 1986 filed by Selliamman Koil Co-operative House Site Society Ltd., after elaborately considering all the contentions raised before him, has dismissed these two writ petitions. Hence, these appeals. It cannot be gainsaid that these appellants have preferred the two writ petitions after a delay of 12 years reckoned from the date of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act or 9 years reckoned from the date of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act. They have not made any statement as to why they had approached this Court after such a long delay. As rightly pointed out by the learned single Judge, the appellants might have thought that; they having agreed to sell the property in favour of the Society, the Society would fight against the acquisition proceedings.</p><p>3. Mr. K. Ramamurthi, learned Counsel for the appellants, contending that the Court should take a liberal attitude in condonation of the delay and that this delay in the appellants approaching the Court should not stand in the way of granting the relief sought for by them, relied upon a decision of. the Supreme Court in Collector. Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji : (1987)ILLJ500SC , In that case, there was a delay of four days, and the said delay had not been condoned by the High Court. While dealing with such a situation, the Supreme Court has stated thus:</p><p>'Every day's delay must be explained does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made xxx xxx xxx</p><p>When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay.</p><p>In our view, the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in that case having regard to the facts of the case cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case in which, as pointed out earlier, there is a long delay of 12 years from the date of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and 9 years from the date of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act.</p><p>4. In this connection, we would like to point out that the Supreme Court in Hari Singh v. State of U.P. : [1984]3SCR417 , has dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay of 2-1/2 years. In the present case, the appellants had every knowledge of the acquisition since they admittedly filed their objections during the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act which was held on 10.12.1975 and 12.12.1975. Yet it did not occur to them that they should question the acquisition. As rightly pointed out by the learned Judge, probably these two appellants wanted somebody else to fight the battle.</p><p>5. Learned Counsel now states that the land acquired is proposed to be used for some purpose other than the one for which it was acquired. But he would fairly concede that there is no notification to that effect. The decision cited by the learned Counsel in Special Deputy Collector and Land Acquisition Officer, Salem Steel Plant, Salem v. Kuppu Gounder 1985 T.L.N.J. 284, in support of his contention cannot be of any help in this case since admittedly there is no notification that this land is going to be utilised for a purpose other than the one for which it was acquired. Under these circumstances, we see no merit in these appeals. These writ appeals are dismissed.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '(1987)2MLJ280', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Commissioner and Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Dep', 'sub' => 'Property', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'mymon-bi-vs-represented-commissioner' $args = array( (int) 0 => '793075', (int) 1 => 'mymon-bi-vs-represented-commissioner' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/793075/mymon-bi-vs-represented-commissioner' $ctype = ' High Court' $caseref = 'Salem v. Kuppu Gounder<br>' $content = array( (int) 0 => '<p>Ratnavel Pandian, J.', (int) 1 => '<p>1. These two appeals are preferred against the order of Mohan, J., made in W.P. Nos. 8586 and 8587 of 1987 dismissing those writ petitions which were filed challenging the validity, of the land acquisition proceedings taken out for public purpose, viz. for the creation of a new neighbourhood known as Kalaignar Karunanidhi Nagar.', (int) 2 => '<p>2. The brief facts of the case are as follows : A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was made on 29.8.1975, and it was published in the Gazette on 1.10.1975. The property was originally owned by one Noorudeen and Saradambal. The daughters of Noorudeen are the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 8586 and 8587 of 1987 (which were heard by the learned single Judge). On 4.3.1975, the daughters of Noorudeen entered into an agreement for sale of the property to one Sundaram. After the publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, the said Sundaram and the petitioners in the two writ petitions executed an agreement for sale in favour of Selliamman Koil Co-operative House Site Society Ltd., which was the petitioner in W.P. No. 2344 of 1983. The daughters of Noorudeen filed their objections, objecting to the acquisition during the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. Overruling the objections, the Collector recommended the acquisition to be proceeded with. Thereupon, the Government accepted the recommendation of the Collector and issued a declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 29.9.1978. After the proceedings under Sections 9(2) and 10, the awards had been passed on 28.2.1983 and 30.5.1983 in respect of parcels of the lands under acquisition. Mohan, J., who heard the writ petitions along with W.P. No. 2344 of 1986 filed by Selliamman Koil Co-operative House Site Society Ltd., after elaborately considering all the contentions raised before him, has dismissed these two writ petitions. Hence, these appeals. It cannot be gainsaid that these appellants have preferred the two writ petitions after a delay of 12 years reckoned from the date of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act or 9 years reckoned from the date of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act. They have not made any statement as to why they had approached this Court after such a long delay. As rightly pointed out by the learned single Judge, the appellants might have thought that; they having agreed to sell the property in favour of the Society, the Society would fight against the acquisition proceedings.', (int) 3 => '<p>3. Mr. K. Ramamurthi, learned Counsel for the appellants, contending that the Court should take a liberal attitude in condonation of the delay and that this delay in the appellants approaching the Court should not stand in the way of granting the relief sought for by them, relied upon a decision of. the Supreme Court in Collector. Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji : (1987)ILLJ500SC , In that case, there was a delay of four days, and the said delay had not been condoned by the High Court. While dealing with such a situation, the Supreme Court has stated thus:', (int) 4 => '<p>'Every day's delay must be explained does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made xxx xxx xxx', (int) 5 => '<p>When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay.', (int) 6 => '<p>In our view, the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in that case having regard to the facts of the case cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case in which, as pointed out earlier, there is a long delay of 12 years from the date of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and 9 years from the date of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act.', (int) 7 => '<p>4. In this connection, we would like to point out that the Supreme Court in Hari Singh v. State of U.P. : [1984]3SCR417 , has dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay of 2-1/2 years. In the present case, the appellants had every knowledge of the acquisition since they admittedly filed their objections during the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act which was held on 10.12.1975 and 12.12.1975. Yet it did not occur to them that they should question the acquisition. As rightly pointed out by the learned Judge, probably these two appellants wanted somebody else to fight the battle.', (int) 8 => '<p>5. Learned Counsel now states that the land acquired is proposed to be used for some purpose other than the one for which it was acquired. But he would fairly concede that there is no notification to that effect. The decision cited by the learned Counsel in Special Deputy Collector and Land Acquisition Officer, Salem Steel Plant, Salem v. Kuppu Gounder 1985 T.L.N.J. 284, in support of his contention cannot be of any help in this case since admittedly there is no notification that this land is going to be utilised for a purpose other than the one for which it was acquired. Under these circumstances, we see no merit in these appeals. These writ appeals are dismissed.<p>', (int) 9 => '<p>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 10 $i = (int) 2include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows : A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was made on 29.8.1975, and it was published in the Gazette on 1.10.1975. The property was originally owned by one Noorudeen and Saradambal. The daughters of Noorudeen are the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 8586 and 8587 of 1987 (which were heard by the learned single Judge). On 4.3.1975, the daughters of Noorudeen entered into an agreement for sale of the property to one Sundaram. After the publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, the said Sundaram and the petitioners in the two writ petitions executed an agreement for sale in favour of Selliamman Koil Co-operative House Site Society Ltd., which was the petitioner in W.P. No. 2344 of 1983. The daughters of Noorudeen filed their objections, objecting to the acquisition during the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. Overruling the objections, the Collector recommended the acquisition to be proceeded with. Thereupon, the Government accepted the recommendation of the Collector and issued a declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 29.9.1978. After the proceedings under Sections 9(2) and 10, the awards had been passed on 28.2.1983 and 30.5.1983 in respect of parcels of the lands under acquisition. Mohan, J., who heard the writ petitions along with W.P. No. 2344 of 1986 filed by Selliamman Koil Co-operative House Site Society Ltd., after elaborately considering all the contentions raised before him, has dismissed these two writ petitions. Hence, these appeals. It cannot be gainsaid that these appellants have preferred the two writ petitions after a delay of 12 years reckoned from the date of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act or 9 years reckoned from the date of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act. They have not made any statement as to why they had approached this Court after such a long delay. As rightly pointed out by the learned single Judge, the appellants might have thought that; they having agreed to sell the property in favour of the Society, the Society would fight against the acquisition proceedings.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Mymon Bi and anr Vs State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Commissioner and Secretary Housing and Urban Development Department and anr - Citation 793075 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '793075', 'acts' => '', 'appealno' => '', 'appellant' => 'Mymon Bi and anr.', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Mymon Bi and anr. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Commissioner and Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department and anr.', 'casenote' => ' - - Overruling the objections, the Collector recommended the acquisition to be proceeded with. 4. In this connection, we would like to point out that the Supreme Court in Hari Singh v.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'Salem v. Kuppu Gounder;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => '', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Chennai', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1987-11-19', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => '', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Ratnavel Pandian, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. These two appeals are preferred against the order of Mohan, J., made in W.P. Nos. 8586 and 8587 of 1987 dismissing those writ petitions which were filed challenging the validity, of the land acquisition proceedings taken out for public purpose, viz. for the creation of a new neighbourhood known as Kalaignar Karunanidhi Nagar.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The brief facts of the case are as follows : A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was made on 29.8.1975, and it was published in the Gazette on 1.10.1975. The property was originally owned by one Noorudeen and Saradambal. The daughters of Noorudeen are the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 8586 and 8587 of 1987 (which were heard by the learned single Judge). On 4.3.1975, the daughters of Noorudeen entered into an agreement for sale of the property to one Sundaram. After the publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, the said Sundaram and the petitioners in the two writ petitions executed an agreement for sale in favour of Selliamman Koil Co-operative House Site Society Ltd., which was the petitioner in W.P. No. 2344 of 1983. The daughters of Noorudeen filed their objections, objecting to the acquisition during the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. Overruling the objections, the Collector recommended the acquisition to be proceeded with. Thereupon, the Government accepted the recommendation of the Collector and issued a declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 29.9.1978. After the proceedings under Sections 9(2) and 10, the awards had been passed on 28.2.1983 and 30.5.1983 in respect of parcels of the lands under acquisition. Mohan, J., who heard the writ petitions along with W.P. No. 2344 of 1986 filed by Selliamman Koil Co-operative House Site Society Ltd., after elaborately considering all the contentions raised before him, has dismissed these two writ petitions. Hence, these appeals. It cannot be gainsaid that these appellants have preferred the two writ petitions after a delay of 12 years reckoned from the date of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act or 9 years reckoned from the date of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act. They have not made any statement as to why they had approached this Court after such a long delay. As rightly pointed out by the learned single Judge, the appellants might have thought that; they having agreed to sell the property in favour of the Society, the Society would fight against the acquisition proceedings.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Mr. K. Ramamurthi, learned Counsel for the appellants, contending that the Court should take a liberal attitude in condonation of the delay and that this delay in the appellants approaching the Court should not stand in the way of granting the relief sought for by them, relied upon a decision of. the Supreme Court in Collector. Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji : (1987)ILLJ500SC , In that case, there was a delay of four days, and the said delay had not been condoned by the High Court. While dealing with such a situation, the Supreme Court has stated thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Every day's delay must be explained does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made xxx xxx xxx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In our view, the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in that case having regard to the facts of the case cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case in which, as pointed out earlier, there is a long delay of 12 years from the date of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and 9 years from the date of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In this connection, we would like to point out that the Supreme Court in Hari Singh v. State of U.P. : [1984]3SCR417 , has dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay of 2-1/2 years. In the present case, the appellants had every knowledge of the acquisition since they admittedly filed their objections during the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act which was held on 10.12.1975 and 12.12.1975. Yet it did not occur to them that they should question the acquisition. As rightly pointed out by the learned Judge, probably these two appellants wanted somebody else to fight the battle.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Learned Counsel now states that the land acquired is proposed to be used for some purpose other than the one for which it was acquired. But he would fairly concede that there is no notification to that effect. The decision cited by the learned Counsel in Special Deputy Collector and Land Acquisition Officer, Salem Steel Plant, Salem v. Kuppu Gounder 1985 T.L.N.J. 284, in support of his contention cannot be of any help in this case since admittedly there is no notification that this land is going to be utilised for a purpose other than the one for which it was acquired. Under these circumstances, we see no merit in these appeals. These writ appeals are dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '(1987)2MLJ280', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Commissioner and Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Dep', 'sub' => 'Property', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'mymon-bi-vs-represented-commissioner', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '793075', (int) 1 => 'mymon-bi-vs-represented-commissioner' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Mymon Bi and anr Vs State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Commissioner and Secretary Housing and Urban Development Department and anr - Citation 793075 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '793075', 'acts' => '', 'appealno' => '', 'appellant' => 'Mymon Bi and anr.', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Mymon Bi and anr. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Commissioner and Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department and anr.', 'casenote' => ' - - Overruling the objections, the Collector recommended the acquisition to be proceeded with. 4. In this connection, we would like to point out that the Supreme Court in Hari Singh v.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'Salem v. Kuppu Gounder;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => '', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Chennai', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1987-11-19', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => '', 'judgement' => '<p>Ratnavel Pandian, J.</p><p>1. These two appeals are preferred against the order of Mohan, J., made in W.P. Nos. 8586 and 8587 of 1987 dismissing those writ petitions which were filed challenging the validity, of the land acquisition proceedings taken out for public purpose, viz. for the creation of a new neighbourhood known as Kalaignar Karunanidhi Nagar.</p><p>2. The brief facts of the case are as follows : A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was made on 29.8.1975, and it was published in the Gazette on 1.10.1975. The property was originally owned by one Noorudeen and Saradambal. The daughters of Noorudeen are the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 8586 and 8587 of 1987 (which were heard by the learned single Judge). On 4.3.1975, the daughters of Noorudeen entered into an agreement for sale of the property to one Sundaram. After the publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, the said Sundaram and the petitioners in the two writ petitions executed an agreement for sale in favour of Selliamman Koil Co-operative House Site Society Ltd., which was the petitioner in W.P. No. 2344 of 1983. The daughters of Noorudeen filed their objections, objecting to the acquisition during the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. Overruling the objections, the Collector recommended the acquisition to be proceeded with. Thereupon, the Government accepted the recommendation of the Collector and issued a declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 29.9.1978. After the proceedings under Sections 9(2) and 10, the awards had been passed on 28.2.1983 and 30.5.1983 in respect of parcels of the lands under acquisition. Mohan, J., who heard the writ petitions along with W.P. No. 2344 of 1986 filed by Selliamman Koil Co-operative House Site Society Ltd., after elaborately considering all the contentions raised before him, has dismissed these two writ petitions. Hence, these appeals. It cannot be gainsaid that these appellants have preferred the two writ petitions after a delay of 12 years reckoned from the date of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act or 9 years reckoned from the date of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act. They have not made any statement as to why they had approached this Court after such a long delay. As rightly pointed out by the learned single Judge, the appellants might have thought that; they having agreed to sell the property in favour of the Society, the Society would fight against the acquisition proceedings.</p><p>3. Mr. K. Ramamurthi, learned Counsel for the appellants, contending that the Court should take a liberal attitude in condonation of the delay and that this delay in the appellants approaching the Court should not stand in the way of granting the relief sought for by them, relied upon a decision of. the Supreme Court in Collector. Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji : (1987)ILLJ500SC , In that case, there was a delay of four days, and the said delay had not been condoned by the High Court. While dealing with such a situation, the Supreme Court has stated thus:</p><p>'Every day's delay must be explained does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made xxx xxx xxx</p><p>When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay.</p><p>In our view, the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in that case having regard to the facts of the case cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case in which, as pointed out earlier, there is a long delay of 12 years from the date of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and 9 years from the date of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act.</p><p>4. In this connection, we would like to point out that the Supreme Court in Hari Singh v. State of U.P. : [1984]3SCR417 , has dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay of 2-1/2 years. In the present case, the appellants had every knowledge of the acquisition since they admittedly filed their objections during the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act which was held on 10.12.1975 and 12.12.1975. Yet it did not occur to them that they should question the acquisition. As rightly pointed out by the learned Judge, probably these two appellants wanted somebody else to fight the battle.</p><p>5. Learned Counsel now states that the land acquired is proposed to be used for some purpose other than the one for which it was acquired. But he would fairly concede that there is no notification to that effect. The decision cited by the learned Counsel in Special Deputy Collector and Land Acquisition Officer, Salem Steel Plant, Salem v. Kuppu Gounder 1985 T.L.N.J. 284, in support of his contention cannot be of any help in this case since admittedly there is no notification that this land is going to be utilised for a purpose other than the one for which it was acquired. Under these circumstances, we see no merit in these appeals. These writ appeals are dismissed.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '(1987)2MLJ280', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Commissioner and Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Dep', 'sub' => 'Property', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'mymon-bi-vs-represented-commissioner' $args = array( (int) 0 => '793075', (int) 1 => 'mymon-bi-vs-represented-commissioner' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/793075/mymon-bi-vs-represented-commissioner' $ctype = ' High Court' $caseref = 'Salem v. Kuppu Gounder<br>' $content = array( (int) 0 => '<p>Ratnavel Pandian, J.', (int) 1 => '<p>1. These two appeals are preferred against the order of Mohan, J., made in W.P. Nos. 8586 and 8587 of 1987 dismissing those writ petitions which were filed challenging the validity, of the land acquisition proceedings taken out for public purpose, viz. for the creation of a new neighbourhood known as Kalaignar Karunanidhi Nagar.', (int) 2 => '<p>2. The brief facts of the case are as follows : A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was made on 29.8.1975, and it was published in the Gazette on 1.10.1975. The property was originally owned by one Noorudeen and Saradambal. The daughters of Noorudeen are the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 8586 and 8587 of 1987 (which were heard by the learned single Judge). On 4.3.1975, the daughters of Noorudeen entered into an agreement for sale of the property to one Sundaram. After the publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, the said Sundaram and the petitioners in the two writ petitions executed an agreement for sale in favour of Selliamman Koil Co-operative House Site Society Ltd., which was the petitioner in W.P. No. 2344 of 1983. The daughters of Noorudeen filed their objections, objecting to the acquisition during the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. Overruling the objections, the Collector recommended the acquisition to be proceeded with. Thereupon, the Government accepted the recommendation of the Collector and issued a declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 29.9.1978. After the proceedings under Sections 9(2) and 10, the awards had been passed on 28.2.1983 and 30.5.1983 in respect of parcels of the lands under acquisition. Mohan, J., who heard the writ petitions along with W.P. No. 2344 of 1986 filed by Selliamman Koil Co-operative House Site Society Ltd., after elaborately considering all the contentions raised before him, has dismissed these two writ petitions. Hence, these appeals. It cannot be gainsaid that these appellants have preferred the two writ petitions after a delay of 12 years reckoned from the date of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act or 9 years reckoned from the date of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act. They have not made any statement as to why they had approached this Court after such a long delay. As rightly pointed out by the learned single Judge, the appellants might have thought that; they having agreed to sell the property in favour of the Society, the Society would fight against the acquisition proceedings.', (int) 3 => '<p>3. Mr. K. Ramamurthi, learned Counsel for the appellants, contending that the Court should take a liberal attitude in condonation of the delay and that this delay in the appellants approaching the Court should not stand in the way of granting the relief sought for by them, relied upon a decision of. the Supreme Court in Collector. Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji : (1987)ILLJ500SC , In that case, there was a delay of four days, and the said delay had not been condoned by the High Court. While dealing with such a situation, the Supreme Court has stated thus:', (int) 4 => '<p>'Every day's delay must be explained does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made xxx xxx xxx', (int) 5 => '<p>When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay.', (int) 6 => '<p>In our view, the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in that case having regard to the facts of the case cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case in which, as pointed out earlier, there is a long delay of 12 years from the date of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and 9 years from the date of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act.', (int) 7 => '<p>4. In this connection, we would like to point out that the Supreme Court in Hari Singh v. State of U.P. : [1984]3SCR417 , has dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay of 2-1/2 years. In the present case, the appellants had every knowledge of the acquisition since they admittedly filed their objections during the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act which was held on 10.12.1975 and 12.12.1975. Yet it did not occur to them that they should question the acquisition. As rightly pointed out by the learned Judge, probably these two appellants wanted somebody else to fight the battle.', (int) 8 => '<p>5. Learned Counsel now states that the land acquired is proposed to be used for some purpose other than the one for which it was acquired. But he would fairly concede that there is no notification to that effect. The decision cited by the learned Counsel in Special Deputy Collector and Land Acquisition Officer, Salem Steel Plant, Salem v. Kuppu Gounder 1985 T.L.N.J. 284, in support of his contention cannot be of any help in this case since admittedly there is no notification that this land is going to be utilised for a purpose other than the one for which it was acquired. Under these circumstances, we see no merit in these appeals. These writ appeals are dismissed.<p>', (int) 9 => '<p>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 10 $i = (int) 3include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
3. Mr. K. Ramamurthi, learned Counsel for the appellants, contending that the Court should take a liberal attitude in condonation of the delay and that this delay in the appellants approaching the Court should not stand in the way of granting the relief sought for by them, relied upon a decision of. the Supreme Court in Collector. Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji : (1987)ILLJ500SC , In that case, there was a delay of four days, and the said delay had not been condoned by the High Court. While dealing with such a situation, the Supreme Court has stated thus:
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Mymon Bi and anr Vs State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Commissioner and Secretary Housing and Urban Development Department and anr - Citation 793075 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '793075', 'acts' => '', 'appealno' => '', 'appellant' => 'Mymon Bi and anr.', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Mymon Bi and anr. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Commissioner and Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department and anr.', 'casenote' => ' - - Overruling the objections, the Collector recommended the acquisition to be proceeded with. 4. In this connection, we would like to point out that the Supreme Court in Hari Singh v.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'Salem v. Kuppu Gounder;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => '', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Chennai', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1987-11-19', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => '', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Ratnavel Pandian, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. These two appeals are preferred against the order of Mohan, J., made in W.P. Nos. 8586 and 8587 of 1987 dismissing those writ petitions which were filed challenging the validity, of the land acquisition proceedings taken out for public purpose, viz. for the creation of a new neighbourhood known as Kalaignar Karunanidhi Nagar.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The brief facts of the case are as follows : A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was made on 29.8.1975, and it was published in the Gazette on 1.10.1975. The property was originally owned by one Noorudeen and Saradambal. The daughters of Noorudeen are the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 8586 and 8587 of 1987 (which were heard by the learned single Judge). On 4.3.1975, the daughters of Noorudeen entered into an agreement for sale of the property to one Sundaram. After the publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, the said Sundaram and the petitioners in the two writ petitions executed an agreement for sale in favour of Selliamman Koil Co-operative House Site Society Ltd., which was the petitioner in W.P. No. 2344 of 1983. The daughters of Noorudeen filed their objections, objecting to the acquisition during the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. Overruling the objections, the Collector recommended the acquisition to be proceeded with. Thereupon, the Government accepted the recommendation of the Collector and issued a declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 29.9.1978. After the proceedings under Sections 9(2) and 10, the awards had been passed on 28.2.1983 and 30.5.1983 in respect of parcels of the lands under acquisition. Mohan, J., who heard the writ petitions along with W.P. No. 2344 of 1986 filed by Selliamman Koil Co-operative House Site Society Ltd., after elaborately considering all the contentions raised before him, has dismissed these two writ petitions. Hence, these appeals. It cannot be gainsaid that these appellants have preferred the two writ petitions after a delay of 12 years reckoned from the date of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act or 9 years reckoned from the date of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act. They have not made any statement as to why they had approached this Court after such a long delay. As rightly pointed out by the learned single Judge, the appellants might have thought that; they having agreed to sell the property in favour of the Society, the Society would fight against the acquisition proceedings.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Mr. K. Ramamurthi, learned Counsel for the appellants, contending that the Court should take a liberal attitude in condonation of the delay and that this delay in the appellants approaching the Court should not stand in the way of granting the relief sought for by them, relied upon a decision of. the Supreme Court in Collector. Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji : (1987)ILLJ500SC , In that case, there was a delay of four days, and the said delay had not been condoned by the High Court. While dealing with such a situation, the Supreme Court has stated thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Every day's delay must be explained does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made xxx xxx xxx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In our view, the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in that case having regard to the facts of the case cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case in which, as pointed out earlier, there is a long delay of 12 years from the date of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and 9 years from the date of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In this connection, we would like to point out that the Supreme Court in Hari Singh v. State of U.P. : [1984]3SCR417 , has dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay of 2-1/2 years. In the present case, the appellants had every knowledge of the acquisition since they admittedly filed their objections during the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act which was held on 10.12.1975 and 12.12.1975. Yet it did not occur to them that they should question the acquisition. As rightly pointed out by the learned Judge, probably these two appellants wanted somebody else to fight the battle.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Learned Counsel now states that the land acquired is proposed to be used for some purpose other than the one for which it was acquired. But he would fairly concede that there is no notification to that effect. The decision cited by the learned Counsel in Special Deputy Collector and Land Acquisition Officer, Salem Steel Plant, Salem v. Kuppu Gounder 1985 T.L.N.J. 284, in support of his contention cannot be of any help in this case since admittedly there is no notification that this land is going to be utilised for a purpose other than the one for which it was acquired. Under these circumstances, we see no merit in these appeals. These writ appeals are dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '(1987)2MLJ280', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Commissioner and Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Dep', 'sub' => 'Property', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'mymon-bi-vs-represented-commissioner', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '793075', (int) 1 => 'mymon-bi-vs-represented-commissioner' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Mymon Bi and anr Vs State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Commissioner and Secretary Housing and Urban Development Department and anr - Citation 793075 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '793075', 'acts' => '', 'appealno' => '', 'appellant' => 'Mymon Bi and anr.', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Mymon Bi and anr. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Commissioner and Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department and anr.', 'casenote' => ' - - Overruling the objections, the Collector recommended the acquisition to be proceeded with. 4. In this connection, we would like to point out that the Supreme Court in Hari Singh v.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'Salem v. Kuppu Gounder;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => '', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Chennai', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1987-11-19', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => '', 'judgement' => '<p>Ratnavel Pandian, J.</p><p>1. These two appeals are preferred against the order of Mohan, J., made in W.P. Nos. 8586 and 8587 of 1987 dismissing those writ petitions which were filed challenging the validity, of the land acquisition proceedings taken out for public purpose, viz. for the creation of a new neighbourhood known as Kalaignar Karunanidhi Nagar.</p><p>2. The brief facts of the case are as follows : A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was made on 29.8.1975, and it was published in the Gazette on 1.10.1975. The property was originally owned by one Noorudeen and Saradambal. The daughters of Noorudeen are the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 8586 and 8587 of 1987 (which were heard by the learned single Judge). On 4.3.1975, the daughters of Noorudeen entered into an agreement for sale of the property to one Sundaram. After the publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, the said Sundaram and the petitioners in the two writ petitions executed an agreement for sale in favour of Selliamman Koil Co-operative House Site Society Ltd., which was the petitioner in W.P. No. 2344 of 1983. The daughters of Noorudeen filed their objections, objecting to the acquisition during the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. Overruling the objections, the Collector recommended the acquisition to be proceeded with. Thereupon, the Government accepted the recommendation of the Collector and issued a declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 29.9.1978. After the proceedings under Sections 9(2) and 10, the awards had been passed on 28.2.1983 and 30.5.1983 in respect of parcels of the lands under acquisition. Mohan, J., who heard the writ petitions along with W.P. No. 2344 of 1986 filed by Selliamman Koil Co-operative House Site Society Ltd., after elaborately considering all the contentions raised before him, has dismissed these two writ petitions. Hence, these appeals. It cannot be gainsaid that these appellants have preferred the two writ petitions after a delay of 12 years reckoned from the date of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act or 9 years reckoned from the date of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act. They have not made any statement as to why they had approached this Court after such a long delay. As rightly pointed out by the learned single Judge, the appellants might have thought that; they having agreed to sell the property in favour of the Society, the Society would fight against the acquisition proceedings.</p><p>3. Mr. K. Ramamurthi, learned Counsel for the appellants, contending that the Court should take a liberal attitude in condonation of the delay and that this delay in the appellants approaching the Court should not stand in the way of granting the relief sought for by them, relied upon a decision of. the Supreme Court in Collector. Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji : (1987)ILLJ500SC , In that case, there was a delay of four days, and the said delay had not been condoned by the High Court. While dealing with such a situation, the Supreme Court has stated thus:</p><p>'Every day's delay must be explained does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made xxx xxx xxx</p><p>When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay.</p><p>In our view, the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in that case having regard to the facts of the case cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case in which, as pointed out earlier, there is a long delay of 12 years from the date of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and 9 years from the date of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act.</p><p>4. In this connection, we would like to point out that the Supreme Court in Hari Singh v. State of U.P. : [1984]3SCR417 , has dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay of 2-1/2 years. In the present case, the appellants had every knowledge of the acquisition since they admittedly filed their objections during the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act which was held on 10.12.1975 and 12.12.1975. Yet it did not occur to them that they should question the acquisition. As rightly pointed out by the learned Judge, probably these two appellants wanted somebody else to fight the battle.</p><p>5. Learned Counsel now states that the land acquired is proposed to be used for some purpose other than the one for which it was acquired. But he would fairly concede that there is no notification to that effect. The decision cited by the learned Counsel in Special Deputy Collector and Land Acquisition Officer, Salem Steel Plant, Salem v. Kuppu Gounder 1985 T.L.N.J. 284, in support of his contention cannot be of any help in this case since admittedly there is no notification that this land is going to be utilised for a purpose other than the one for which it was acquired. Under these circumstances, we see no merit in these appeals. These writ appeals are dismissed.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '(1987)2MLJ280', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Commissioner and Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Dep', 'sub' => 'Property', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'mymon-bi-vs-represented-commissioner' $args = array( (int) 0 => '793075', (int) 1 => 'mymon-bi-vs-represented-commissioner' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/793075/mymon-bi-vs-represented-commissioner' $ctype = ' High Court' $caseref = 'Salem v. Kuppu Gounder<br>' $content = array( (int) 0 => '<p>Ratnavel Pandian, J.', (int) 1 => '<p>1. These two appeals are preferred against the order of Mohan, J., made in W.P. Nos. 8586 and 8587 of 1987 dismissing those writ petitions which were filed challenging the validity, of the land acquisition proceedings taken out for public purpose, viz. for the creation of a new neighbourhood known as Kalaignar Karunanidhi Nagar.', (int) 2 => '<p>2. The brief facts of the case are as follows : A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was made on 29.8.1975, and it was published in the Gazette on 1.10.1975. The property was originally owned by one Noorudeen and Saradambal. The daughters of Noorudeen are the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 8586 and 8587 of 1987 (which were heard by the learned single Judge). On 4.3.1975, the daughters of Noorudeen entered into an agreement for sale of the property to one Sundaram. After the publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, the said Sundaram and the petitioners in the two writ petitions executed an agreement for sale in favour of Selliamman Koil Co-operative House Site Society Ltd., which was the petitioner in W.P. No. 2344 of 1983. The daughters of Noorudeen filed their objections, objecting to the acquisition during the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. Overruling the objections, the Collector recommended the acquisition to be proceeded with. Thereupon, the Government accepted the recommendation of the Collector and issued a declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 29.9.1978. After the proceedings under Sections 9(2) and 10, the awards had been passed on 28.2.1983 and 30.5.1983 in respect of parcels of the lands under acquisition. Mohan, J., who heard the writ petitions along with W.P. No. 2344 of 1986 filed by Selliamman Koil Co-operative House Site Society Ltd., after elaborately considering all the contentions raised before him, has dismissed these two writ petitions. Hence, these appeals. It cannot be gainsaid that these appellants have preferred the two writ petitions after a delay of 12 years reckoned from the date of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act or 9 years reckoned from the date of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act. They have not made any statement as to why they had approached this Court after such a long delay. As rightly pointed out by the learned single Judge, the appellants might have thought that; they having agreed to sell the property in favour of the Society, the Society would fight against the acquisition proceedings.', (int) 3 => '<p>3. Mr. K. Ramamurthi, learned Counsel for the appellants, contending that the Court should take a liberal attitude in condonation of the delay and that this delay in the appellants approaching the Court should not stand in the way of granting the relief sought for by them, relied upon a decision of. the Supreme Court in Collector. Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji : (1987)ILLJ500SC , In that case, there was a delay of four days, and the said delay had not been condoned by the High Court. While dealing with such a situation, the Supreme Court has stated thus:', (int) 4 => '<p>'Every day's delay must be explained does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made xxx xxx xxx', (int) 5 => '<p>When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay.', (int) 6 => '<p>In our view, the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in that case having regard to the facts of the case cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case in which, as pointed out earlier, there is a long delay of 12 years from the date of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and 9 years from the date of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act.', (int) 7 => '<p>4. In this connection, we would like to point out that the Supreme Court in Hari Singh v. State of U.P. : [1984]3SCR417 , has dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay of 2-1/2 years. In the present case, the appellants had every knowledge of the acquisition since they admittedly filed their objections during the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act which was held on 10.12.1975 and 12.12.1975. Yet it did not occur to them that they should question the acquisition. As rightly pointed out by the learned Judge, probably these two appellants wanted somebody else to fight the battle.', (int) 8 => '<p>5. Learned Counsel now states that the land acquired is proposed to be used for some purpose other than the one for which it was acquired. But he would fairly concede that there is no notification to that effect. The decision cited by the learned Counsel in Special Deputy Collector and Land Acquisition Officer, Salem Steel Plant, Salem v. Kuppu Gounder 1985 T.L.N.J. 284, in support of his contention cannot be of any help in this case since admittedly there is no notification that this land is going to be utilised for a purpose other than the one for which it was acquired. Under these circumstances, we see no merit in these appeals. These writ appeals are dismissed.<p>', (int) 9 => '<p>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 10 $i = (int) 4include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
'Every day's delay must be explained does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made xxx xxx xxx
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Mymon Bi and anr Vs State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Commissioner and Secretary Housing and Urban Development Department and anr - Citation 793075 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '793075', 'acts' => '', 'appealno' => '', 'appellant' => 'Mymon Bi and anr.', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Mymon Bi and anr. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Commissioner and Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department and anr.', 'casenote' => ' - - Overruling the objections, the Collector recommended the acquisition to be proceeded with. 4. In this connection, we would like to point out that the Supreme Court in Hari Singh v.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'Salem v. Kuppu Gounder;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => '', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Chennai', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1987-11-19', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => '', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Ratnavel Pandian, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. These two appeals are preferred against the order of Mohan, J., made in W.P. Nos. 8586 and 8587 of 1987 dismissing those writ petitions which were filed challenging the validity, of the land acquisition proceedings taken out for public purpose, viz. for the creation of a new neighbourhood known as Kalaignar Karunanidhi Nagar.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The brief facts of the case are as follows : A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was made on 29.8.1975, and it was published in the Gazette on 1.10.1975. The property was originally owned by one Noorudeen and Saradambal. The daughters of Noorudeen are the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 8586 and 8587 of 1987 (which were heard by the learned single Judge). On 4.3.1975, the daughters of Noorudeen entered into an agreement for sale of the property to one Sundaram. After the publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, the said Sundaram and the petitioners in the two writ petitions executed an agreement for sale in favour of Selliamman Koil Co-operative House Site Society Ltd., which was the petitioner in W.P. No. 2344 of 1983. The daughters of Noorudeen filed their objections, objecting to the acquisition during the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. Overruling the objections, the Collector recommended the acquisition to be proceeded with. Thereupon, the Government accepted the recommendation of the Collector and issued a declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 29.9.1978. After the proceedings under Sections 9(2) and 10, the awards had been passed on 28.2.1983 and 30.5.1983 in respect of parcels of the lands under acquisition. Mohan, J., who heard the writ petitions along with W.P. No. 2344 of 1986 filed by Selliamman Koil Co-operative House Site Society Ltd., after elaborately considering all the contentions raised before him, has dismissed these two writ petitions. Hence, these appeals. It cannot be gainsaid that these appellants have preferred the two writ petitions after a delay of 12 years reckoned from the date of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act or 9 years reckoned from the date of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act. They have not made any statement as to why they had approached this Court after such a long delay. As rightly pointed out by the learned single Judge, the appellants might have thought that; they having agreed to sell the property in favour of the Society, the Society would fight against the acquisition proceedings.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Mr. K. Ramamurthi, learned Counsel for the appellants, contending that the Court should take a liberal attitude in condonation of the delay and that this delay in the appellants approaching the Court should not stand in the way of granting the relief sought for by them, relied upon a decision of. the Supreme Court in Collector. Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji : (1987)ILLJ500SC , In that case, there was a delay of four days, and the said delay had not been condoned by the High Court. While dealing with such a situation, the Supreme Court has stated thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Every day's delay must be explained does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made xxx xxx xxx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In our view, the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in that case having regard to the facts of the case cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case in which, as pointed out earlier, there is a long delay of 12 years from the date of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and 9 years from the date of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In this connection, we would like to point out that the Supreme Court in Hari Singh v. State of U.P. : [1984]3SCR417 , has dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay of 2-1/2 years. In the present case, the appellants had every knowledge of the acquisition since they admittedly filed their objections during the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act which was held on 10.12.1975 and 12.12.1975. Yet it did not occur to them that they should question the acquisition. As rightly pointed out by the learned Judge, probably these two appellants wanted somebody else to fight the battle.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Learned Counsel now states that the land acquired is proposed to be used for some purpose other than the one for which it was acquired. But he would fairly concede that there is no notification to that effect. The decision cited by the learned Counsel in Special Deputy Collector and Land Acquisition Officer, Salem Steel Plant, Salem v. Kuppu Gounder 1985 T.L.N.J. 284, in support of his contention cannot be of any help in this case since admittedly there is no notification that this land is going to be utilised for a purpose other than the one for which it was acquired. Under these circumstances, we see no merit in these appeals. These writ appeals are dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '(1987)2MLJ280', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Commissioner and Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Dep', 'sub' => 'Property', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'mymon-bi-vs-represented-commissioner', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '793075', (int) 1 => 'mymon-bi-vs-represented-commissioner' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Mymon Bi and anr Vs State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Commissioner and Secretary Housing and Urban Development Department and anr - Citation 793075 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '793075', 'acts' => '', 'appealno' => '', 'appellant' => 'Mymon Bi and anr.', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Mymon Bi and anr. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Commissioner and Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department and anr.', 'casenote' => ' - - Overruling the objections, the Collector recommended the acquisition to be proceeded with. 4. In this connection, we would like to point out that the Supreme Court in Hari Singh v.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'Salem v. Kuppu Gounder;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => '', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Chennai', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1987-11-19', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => '', 'judgement' => '<p>Ratnavel Pandian, J.</p><p>1. These two appeals are preferred against the order of Mohan, J., made in W.P. Nos. 8586 and 8587 of 1987 dismissing those writ petitions which were filed challenging the validity, of the land acquisition proceedings taken out for public purpose, viz. for the creation of a new neighbourhood known as Kalaignar Karunanidhi Nagar.</p><p>2. The brief facts of the case are as follows : A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was made on 29.8.1975, and it was published in the Gazette on 1.10.1975. The property was originally owned by one Noorudeen and Saradambal. The daughters of Noorudeen are the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 8586 and 8587 of 1987 (which were heard by the learned single Judge). On 4.3.1975, the daughters of Noorudeen entered into an agreement for sale of the property to one Sundaram. After the publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, the said Sundaram and the petitioners in the two writ petitions executed an agreement for sale in favour of Selliamman Koil Co-operative House Site Society Ltd., which was the petitioner in W.P. No. 2344 of 1983. The daughters of Noorudeen filed their objections, objecting to the acquisition during the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. Overruling the objections, the Collector recommended the acquisition to be proceeded with. Thereupon, the Government accepted the recommendation of the Collector and issued a declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 29.9.1978. After the proceedings under Sections 9(2) and 10, the awards had been passed on 28.2.1983 and 30.5.1983 in respect of parcels of the lands under acquisition. Mohan, J., who heard the writ petitions along with W.P. No. 2344 of 1986 filed by Selliamman Koil Co-operative House Site Society Ltd., after elaborately considering all the contentions raised before him, has dismissed these two writ petitions. Hence, these appeals. It cannot be gainsaid that these appellants have preferred the two writ petitions after a delay of 12 years reckoned from the date of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act or 9 years reckoned from the date of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act. They have not made any statement as to why they had approached this Court after such a long delay. As rightly pointed out by the learned single Judge, the appellants might have thought that; they having agreed to sell the property in favour of the Society, the Society would fight against the acquisition proceedings.</p><p>3. Mr. K. Ramamurthi, learned Counsel for the appellants, contending that the Court should take a liberal attitude in condonation of the delay and that this delay in the appellants approaching the Court should not stand in the way of granting the relief sought for by them, relied upon a decision of. the Supreme Court in Collector. Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji : (1987)ILLJ500SC , In that case, there was a delay of four days, and the said delay had not been condoned by the High Court. While dealing with such a situation, the Supreme Court has stated thus:</p><p>'Every day's delay must be explained does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made xxx xxx xxx</p><p>When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay.</p><p>In our view, the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in that case having regard to the facts of the case cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case in which, as pointed out earlier, there is a long delay of 12 years from the date of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and 9 years from the date of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act.</p><p>4. In this connection, we would like to point out that the Supreme Court in Hari Singh v. State of U.P. : [1984]3SCR417 , has dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay of 2-1/2 years. In the present case, the appellants had every knowledge of the acquisition since they admittedly filed their objections during the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act which was held on 10.12.1975 and 12.12.1975. Yet it did not occur to them that they should question the acquisition. As rightly pointed out by the learned Judge, probably these two appellants wanted somebody else to fight the battle.</p><p>5. Learned Counsel now states that the land acquired is proposed to be used for some purpose other than the one for which it was acquired. But he would fairly concede that there is no notification to that effect. The decision cited by the learned Counsel in Special Deputy Collector and Land Acquisition Officer, Salem Steel Plant, Salem v. Kuppu Gounder 1985 T.L.N.J. 284, in support of his contention cannot be of any help in this case since admittedly there is no notification that this land is going to be utilised for a purpose other than the one for which it was acquired. Under these circumstances, we see no merit in these appeals. These writ appeals are dismissed.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '(1987)2MLJ280', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Commissioner and Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Dep', 'sub' => 'Property', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'mymon-bi-vs-represented-commissioner' $args = array( (int) 0 => '793075', (int) 1 => 'mymon-bi-vs-represented-commissioner' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/793075/mymon-bi-vs-represented-commissioner' $ctype = ' High Court' $caseref = 'Salem v. Kuppu Gounder<br>' $content = array( (int) 0 => '<p>Ratnavel Pandian, J.', (int) 1 => '<p>1. These two appeals are preferred against the order of Mohan, J., made in W.P. Nos. 8586 and 8587 of 1987 dismissing those writ petitions which were filed challenging the validity, of the land acquisition proceedings taken out for public purpose, viz. for the creation of a new neighbourhood known as Kalaignar Karunanidhi Nagar.', (int) 2 => '<p>2. The brief facts of the case are as follows : A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was made on 29.8.1975, and it was published in the Gazette on 1.10.1975. The property was originally owned by one Noorudeen and Saradambal. The daughters of Noorudeen are the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 8586 and 8587 of 1987 (which were heard by the learned single Judge). On 4.3.1975, the daughters of Noorudeen entered into an agreement for sale of the property to one Sundaram. After the publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, the said Sundaram and the petitioners in the two writ petitions executed an agreement for sale in favour of Selliamman Koil Co-operative House Site Society Ltd., which was the petitioner in W.P. No. 2344 of 1983. The daughters of Noorudeen filed their objections, objecting to the acquisition during the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. Overruling the objections, the Collector recommended the acquisition to be proceeded with. Thereupon, the Government accepted the recommendation of the Collector and issued a declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 29.9.1978. After the proceedings under Sections 9(2) and 10, the awards had been passed on 28.2.1983 and 30.5.1983 in respect of parcels of the lands under acquisition. Mohan, J., who heard the writ petitions along with W.P. No. 2344 of 1986 filed by Selliamman Koil Co-operative House Site Society Ltd., after elaborately considering all the contentions raised before him, has dismissed these two writ petitions. Hence, these appeals. It cannot be gainsaid that these appellants have preferred the two writ petitions after a delay of 12 years reckoned from the date of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act or 9 years reckoned from the date of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act. They have not made any statement as to why they had approached this Court after such a long delay. As rightly pointed out by the learned single Judge, the appellants might have thought that; they having agreed to sell the property in favour of the Society, the Society would fight against the acquisition proceedings.', (int) 3 => '<p>3. Mr. K. Ramamurthi, learned Counsel for the appellants, contending that the Court should take a liberal attitude in condonation of the delay and that this delay in the appellants approaching the Court should not stand in the way of granting the relief sought for by them, relied upon a decision of. the Supreme Court in Collector. Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji : (1987)ILLJ500SC , In that case, there was a delay of four days, and the said delay had not been condoned by the High Court. While dealing with such a situation, the Supreme Court has stated thus:', (int) 4 => '<p>'Every day's delay must be explained does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made xxx xxx xxx', (int) 5 => '<p>When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay.', (int) 6 => '<p>In our view, the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in that case having regard to the facts of the case cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case in which, as pointed out earlier, there is a long delay of 12 years from the date of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and 9 years from the date of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act.', (int) 7 => '<p>4. In this connection, we would like to point out that the Supreme Court in Hari Singh v. State of U.P. : [1984]3SCR417 , has dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay of 2-1/2 years. In the present case, the appellants had every knowledge of the acquisition since they admittedly filed their objections during the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act which was held on 10.12.1975 and 12.12.1975. Yet it did not occur to them that they should question the acquisition. As rightly pointed out by the learned Judge, probably these two appellants wanted somebody else to fight the battle.', (int) 8 => '<p>5. Learned Counsel now states that the land acquired is proposed to be used for some purpose other than the one for which it was acquired. But he would fairly concede that there is no notification to that effect. The decision cited by the learned Counsel in Special Deputy Collector and Land Acquisition Officer, Salem Steel Plant, Salem v. Kuppu Gounder 1985 T.L.N.J. 284, in support of his contention cannot be of any help in this case since admittedly there is no notification that this land is going to be utilised for a purpose other than the one for which it was acquired. Under these circumstances, we see no merit in these appeals. These writ appeals are dismissed.<p>', (int) 9 => '<p>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 10 $i = (int) 5include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Mymon Bi and anr Vs State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Commissioner and Secretary Housing and Urban Development Department and anr - Citation 793075 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '793075', 'acts' => '', 'appealno' => '', 'appellant' => 'Mymon Bi and anr.', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Mymon Bi and anr. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Commissioner and Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department and anr.', 'casenote' => ' - - Overruling the objections, the Collector recommended the acquisition to be proceeded with. 4. In this connection, we would like to point out that the Supreme Court in Hari Singh v.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'Salem v. Kuppu Gounder;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => '', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Chennai', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1987-11-19', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => '', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Ratnavel Pandian, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. These two appeals are preferred against the order of Mohan, J., made in W.P. Nos. 8586 and 8587 of 1987 dismissing those writ petitions which were filed challenging the validity, of the land acquisition proceedings taken out for public purpose, viz. for the creation of a new neighbourhood known as Kalaignar Karunanidhi Nagar.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The brief facts of the case are as follows : A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was made on 29.8.1975, and it was published in the Gazette on 1.10.1975. The property was originally owned by one Noorudeen and Saradambal. The daughters of Noorudeen are the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 8586 and 8587 of 1987 (which were heard by the learned single Judge). On 4.3.1975, the daughters of Noorudeen entered into an agreement for sale of the property to one Sundaram. After the publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, the said Sundaram and the petitioners in the two writ petitions executed an agreement for sale in favour of Selliamman Koil Co-operative House Site Society Ltd., which was the petitioner in W.P. No. 2344 of 1983. The daughters of Noorudeen filed their objections, objecting to the acquisition during the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. Overruling the objections, the Collector recommended the acquisition to be proceeded with. Thereupon, the Government accepted the recommendation of the Collector and issued a declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 29.9.1978. After the proceedings under Sections 9(2) and 10, the awards had been passed on 28.2.1983 and 30.5.1983 in respect of parcels of the lands under acquisition. Mohan, J., who heard the writ petitions along with W.P. No. 2344 of 1986 filed by Selliamman Koil Co-operative House Site Society Ltd., after elaborately considering all the contentions raised before him, has dismissed these two writ petitions. Hence, these appeals. It cannot be gainsaid that these appellants have preferred the two writ petitions after a delay of 12 years reckoned from the date of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act or 9 years reckoned from the date of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act. They have not made any statement as to why they had approached this Court after such a long delay. As rightly pointed out by the learned single Judge, the appellants might have thought that; they having agreed to sell the property in favour of the Society, the Society would fight against the acquisition proceedings.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Mr. K. Ramamurthi, learned Counsel for the appellants, contending that the Court should take a liberal attitude in condonation of the delay and that this delay in the appellants approaching the Court should not stand in the way of granting the relief sought for by them, relied upon a decision of. the Supreme Court in Collector. Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji : (1987)ILLJ500SC , In that case, there was a delay of four days, and the said delay had not been condoned by the High Court. While dealing with such a situation, the Supreme Court has stated thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Every day's delay must be explained does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made xxx xxx xxx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In our view, the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in that case having regard to the facts of the case cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case in which, as pointed out earlier, there is a long delay of 12 years from the date of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and 9 years from the date of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In this connection, we would like to point out that the Supreme Court in Hari Singh v. State of U.P. : [1984]3SCR417 , has dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay of 2-1/2 years. In the present case, the appellants had every knowledge of the acquisition since they admittedly filed their objections during the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act which was held on 10.12.1975 and 12.12.1975. Yet it did not occur to them that they should question the acquisition. As rightly pointed out by the learned Judge, probably these two appellants wanted somebody else to fight the battle.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Learned Counsel now states that the land acquired is proposed to be used for some purpose other than the one for which it was acquired. But he would fairly concede that there is no notification to that effect. The decision cited by the learned Counsel in Special Deputy Collector and Land Acquisition Officer, Salem Steel Plant, Salem v. Kuppu Gounder 1985 T.L.N.J. 284, in support of his contention cannot be of any help in this case since admittedly there is no notification that this land is going to be utilised for a purpose other than the one for which it was acquired. Under these circumstances, we see no merit in these appeals. These writ appeals are dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '(1987)2MLJ280', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Commissioner and Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Dep', 'sub' => 'Property', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'mymon-bi-vs-represented-commissioner', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '793075', (int) 1 => 'mymon-bi-vs-represented-commissioner' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Mymon Bi and anr Vs State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Commissioner and Secretary Housing and Urban Development Department and anr - Citation 793075 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '793075', 'acts' => '', 'appealno' => '', 'appellant' => 'Mymon Bi and anr.', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Mymon Bi and anr. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Commissioner and Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department and anr.', 'casenote' => ' - - Overruling the objections, the Collector recommended the acquisition to be proceeded with. 4. In this connection, we would like to point out that the Supreme Court in Hari Singh v.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'Salem v. Kuppu Gounder;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => '', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Chennai', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1987-11-19', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => '', 'judgement' => '<p>Ratnavel Pandian, J.</p><p>1. These two appeals are preferred against the order of Mohan, J., made in W.P. Nos. 8586 and 8587 of 1987 dismissing those writ petitions which were filed challenging the validity, of the land acquisition proceedings taken out for public purpose, viz. for the creation of a new neighbourhood known as Kalaignar Karunanidhi Nagar.</p><p>2. The brief facts of the case are as follows : A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was made on 29.8.1975, and it was published in the Gazette on 1.10.1975. The property was originally owned by one Noorudeen and Saradambal. The daughters of Noorudeen are the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 8586 and 8587 of 1987 (which were heard by the learned single Judge). On 4.3.1975, the daughters of Noorudeen entered into an agreement for sale of the property to one Sundaram. After the publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, the said Sundaram and the petitioners in the two writ petitions executed an agreement for sale in favour of Selliamman Koil Co-operative House Site Society Ltd., which was the petitioner in W.P. No. 2344 of 1983. The daughters of Noorudeen filed their objections, objecting to the acquisition during the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. Overruling the objections, the Collector recommended the acquisition to be proceeded with. Thereupon, the Government accepted the recommendation of the Collector and issued a declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 29.9.1978. After the proceedings under Sections 9(2) and 10, the awards had been passed on 28.2.1983 and 30.5.1983 in respect of parcels of the lands under acquisition. Mohan, J., who heard the writ petitions along with W.P. No. 2344 of 1986 filed by Selliamman Koil Co-operative House Site Society Ltd., after elaborately considering all the contentions raised before him, has dismissed these two writ petitions. Hence, these appeals. It cannot be gainsaid that these appellants have preferred the two writ petitions after a delay of 12 years reckoned from the date of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act or 9 years reckoned from the date of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act. They have not made any statement as to why they had approached this Court after such a long delay. As rightly pointed out by the learned single Judge, the appellants might have thought that; they having agreed to sell the property in favour of the Society, the Society would fight against the acquisition proceedings.</p><p>3. Mr. K. Ramamurthi, learned Counsel for the appellants, contending that the Court should take a liberal attitude in condonation of the delay and that this delay in the appellants approaching the Court should not stand in the way of granting the relief sought for by them, relied upon a decision of. the Supreme Court in Collector. Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji : (1987)ILLJ500SC , In that case, there was a delay of four days, and the said delay had not been condoned by the High Court. While dealing with such a situation, the Supreme Court has stated thus:</p><p>'Every day's delay must be explained does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made xxx xxx xxx</p><p>When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay.</p><p>In our view, the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in that case having regard to the facts of the case cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case in which, as pointed out earlier, there is a long delay of 12 years from the date of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and 9 years from the date of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act.</p><p>4. In this connection, we would like to point out that the Supreme Court in Hari Singh v. State of U.P. : [1984]3SCR417 , has dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay of 2-1/2 years. In the present case, the appellants had every knowledge of the acquisition since they admittedly filed their objections during the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act which was held on 10.12.1975 and 12.12.1975. Yet it did not occur to them that they should question the acquisition. As rightly pointed out by the learned Judge, probably these two appellants wanted somebody else to fight the battle.</p><p>5. Learned Counsel now states that the land acquired is proposed to be used for some purpose other than the one for which it was acquired. But he would fairly concede that there is no notification to that effect. The decision cited by the learned Counsel in Special Deputy Collector and Land Acquisition Officer, Salem Steel Plant, Salem v. Kuppu Gounder 1985 T.L.N.J. 284, in support of his contention cannot be of any help in this case since admittedly there is no notification that this land is going to be utilised for a purpose other than the one for which it was acquired. Under these circumstances, we see no merit in these appeals. These writ appeals are dismissed.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '(1987)2MLJ280', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Commissioner and Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Dep', 'sub' => 'Property', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'mymon-bi-vs-represented-commissioner' $args = array( (int) 0 => '793075', (int) 1 => 'mymon-bi-vs-represented-commissioner' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/793075/mymon-bi-vs-represented-commissioner' $ctype = ' High Court' $caseref = 'Salem v. Kuppu Gounder<br>' $content = array( (int) 0 => '<p>Ratnavel Pandian, J.', (int) 1 => '<p>1. These two appeals are preferred against the order of Mohan, J., made in W.P. Nos. 8586 and 8587 of 1987 dismissing those writ petitions which were filed challenging the validity, of the land acquisition proceedings taken out for public purpose, viz. for the creation of a new neighbourhood known as Kalaignar Karunanidhi Nagar.', (int) 2 => '<p>2. The brief facts of the case are as follows : A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was made on 29.8.1975, and it was published in the Gazette on 1.10.1975. The property was originally owned by one Noorudeen and Saradambal. The daughters of Noorudeen are the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 8586 and 8587 of 1987 (which were heard by the learned single Judge). On 4.3.1975, the daughters of Noorudeen entered into an agreement for sale of the property to one Sundaram. After the publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, the said Sundaram and the petitioners in the two writ petitions executed an agreement for sale in favour of Selliamman Koil Co-operative House Site Society Ltd., which was the petitioner in W.P. No. 2344 of 1983. The daughters of Noorudeen filed their objections, objecting to the acquisition during the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. Overruling the objections, the Collector recommended the acquisition to be proceeded with. Thereupon, the Government accepted the recommendation of the Collector and issued a declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 29.9.1978. After the proceedings under Sections 9(2) and 10, the awards had been passed on 28.2.1983 and 30.5.1983 in respect of parcels of the lands under acquisition. Mohan, J., who heard the writ petitions along with W.P. No. 2344 of 1986 filed by Selliamman Koil Co-operative House Site Society Ltd., after elaborately considering all the contentions raised before him, has dismissed these two writ petitions. Hence, these appeals. It cannot be gainsaid that these appellants have preferred the two writ petitions after a delay of 12 years reckoned from the date of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act or 9 years reckoned from the date of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act. They have not made any statement as to why they had approached this Court after such a long delay. As rightly pointed out by the learned single Judge, the appellants might have thought that; they having agreed to sell the property in favour of the Society, the Society would fight against the acquisition proceedings.', (int) 3 => '<p>3. Mr. K. Ramamurthi, learned Counsel for the appellants, contending that the Court should take a liberal attitude in condonation of the delay and that this delay in the appellants approaching the Court should not stand in the way of granting the relief sought for by them, relied upon a decision of. the Supreme Court in Collector. Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji : (1987)ILLJ500SC , In that case, there was a delay of four days, and the said delay had not been condoned by the High Court. While dealing with such a situation, the Supreme Court has stated thus:', (int) 4 => '<p>'Every day's delay must be explained does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made xxx xxx xxx', (int) 5 => '<p>When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay.', (int) 6 => '<p>In our view, the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in that case having regard to the facts of the case cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case in which, as pointed out earlier, there is a long delay of 12 years from the date of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and 9 years from the date of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act.', (int) 7 => '<p>4. In this connection, we would like to point out that the Supreme Court in Hari Singh v. State of U.P. : [1984]3SCR417 , has dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay of 2-1/2 years. In the present case, the appellants had every knowledge of the acquisition since they admittedly filed their objections during the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act which was held on 10.12.1975 and 12.12.1975. Yet it did not occur to them that they should question the acquisition. As rightly pointed out by the learned Judge, probably these two appellants wanted somebody else to fight the battle.', (int) 8 => '<p>5. Learned Counsel now states that the land acquired is proposed to be used for some purpose other than the one for which it was acquired. But he would fairly concede that there is no notification to that effect. The decision cited by the learned Counsel in Special Deputy Collector and Land Acquisition Officer, Salem Steel Plant, Salem v. Kuppu Gounder 1985 T.L.N.J. 284, in support of his contention cannot be of any help in this case since admittedly there is no notification that this land is going to be utilised for a purpose other than the one for which it was acquired. Under these circumstances, we see no merit in these appeals. These writ appeals are dismissed.<p>', (int) 9 => '<p>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 10 $i = (int) 6include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
In our view, the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in that case having regard to the facts of the case cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case in which, as pointed out earlier, there is a long delay of 12 years from the date of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and 9 years from the date of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Mymon Bi and anr Vs State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Commissioner and Secretary Housing and Urban Development Department and anr - Citation 793075 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '793075', 'acts' => '', 'appealno' => '', 'appellant' => 'Mymon Bi and anr.', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Mymon Bi and anr. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Commissioner and Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department and anr.', 'casenote' => ' - - Overruling the objections, the Collector recommended the acquisition to be proceeded with. 4. In this connection, we would like to point out that the Supreme Court in Hari Singh v.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'Salem v. Kuppu Gounder;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => '', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Chennai', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1987-11-19', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => '', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Ratnavel Pandian, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. These two appeals are preferred against the order of Mohan, J., made in W.P. Nos. 8586 and 8587 of 1987 dismissing those writ petitions which were filed challenging the validity, of the land acquisition proceedings taken out for public purpose, viz. for the creation of a new neighbourhood known as Kalaignar Karunanidhi Nagar.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The brief facts of the case are as follows : A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was made on 29.8.1975, and it was published in the Gazette on 1.10.1975. The property was originally owned by one Noorudeen and Saradambal. The daughters of Noorudeen are the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 8586 and 8587 of 1987 (which were heard by the learned single Judge). On 4.3.1975, the daughters of Noorudeen entered into an agreement for sale of the property to one Sundaram. After the publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, the said Sundaram and the petitioners in the two writ petitions executed an agreement for sale in favour of Selliamman Koil Co-operative House Site Society Ltd., which was the petitioner in W.P. No. 2344 of 1983. The daughters of Noorudeen filed their objections, objecting to the acquisition during the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. Overruling the objections, the Collector recommended the acquisition to be proceeded with. Thereupon, the Government accepted the recommendation of the Collector and issued a declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 29.9.1978. After the proceedings under Sections 9(2) and 10, the awards had been passed on 28.2.1983 and 30.5.1983 in respect of parcels of the lands under acquisition. Mohan, J., who heard the writ petitions along with W.P. No. 2344 of 1986 filed by Selliamman Koil Co-operative House Site Society Ltd., after elaborately considering all the contentions raised before him, has dismissed these two writ petitions. Hence, these appeals. It cannot be gainsaid that these appellants have preferred the two writ petitions after a delay of 12 years reckoned from the date of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act or 9 years reckoned from the date of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act. They have not made any statement as to why they had approached this Court after such a long delay. As rightly pointed out by the learned single Judge, the appellants might have thought that; they having agreed to sell the property in favour of the Society, the Society would fight against the acquisition proceedings.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Mr. K. Ramamurthi, learned Counsel for the appellants, contending that the Court should take a liberal attitude in condonation of the delay and that this delay in the appellants approaching the Court should not stand in the way of granting the relief sought for by them, relied upon a decision of. the Supreme Court in Collector. Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji : (1987)ILLJ500SC , In that case, there was a delay of four days, and the said delay had not been condoned by the High Court. While dealing with such a situation, the Supreme Court has stated thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Every day's delay must be explained does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made xxx xxx xxx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In our view, the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in that case having regard to the facts of the case cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case in which, as pointed out earlier, there is a long delay of 12 years from the date of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and 9 years from the date of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In this connection, we would like to point out that the Supreme Court in Hari Singh v. State of U.P. : [1984]3SCR417 , has dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay of 2-1/2 years. In the present case, the appellants had every knowledge of the acquisition since they admittedly filed their objections during the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act which was held on 10.12.1975 and 12.12.1975. Yet it did not occur to them that they should question the acquisition. As rightly pointed out by the learned Judge, probably these two appellants wanted somebody else to fight the battle.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Learned Counsel now states that the land acquired is proposed to be used for some purpose other than the one for which it was acquired. But he would fairly concede that there is no notification to that effect. The decision cited by the learned Counsel in Special Deputy Collector and Land Acquisition Officer, Salem Steel Plant, Salem v. Kuppu Gounder 1985 T.L.N.J. 284, in support of his contention cannot be of any help in this case since admittedly there is no notification that this land is going to be utilised for a purpose other than the one for which it was acquired. Under these circumstances, we see no merit in these appeals. These writ appeals are dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '(1987)2MLJ280', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Commissioner and Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Dep', 'sub' => 'Property', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'mymon-bi-vs-represented-commissioner', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '793075', (int) 1 => 'mymon-bi-vs-represented-commissioner' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Mymon Bi and anr Vs State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Commissioner and Secretary Housing and Urban Development Department and anr - Citation 793075 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '793075', 'acts' => '', 'appealno' => '', 'appellant' => 'Mymon Bi and anr.', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Mymon Bi and anr. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Commissioner and Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department and anr.', 'casenote' => ' - - Overruling the objections, the Collector recommended the acquisition to be proceeded with. 4. In this connection, we would like to point out that the Supreme Court in Hari Singh v.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'Salem v. Kuppu Gounder;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => '', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Chennai', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1987-11-19', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => '', 'judgement' => '<p>Ratnavel Pandian, J.</p><p>1. These two appeals are preferred against the order of Mohan, J., made in W.P. Nos. 8586 and 8587 of 1987 dismissing those writ petitions which were filed challenging the validity, of the land acquisition proceedings taken out for public purpose, viz. for the creation of a new neighbourhood known as Kalaignar Karunanidhi Nagar.</p><p>2. The brief facts of the case are as follows : A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was made on 29.8.1975, and it was published in the Gazette on 1.10.1975. The property was originally owned by one Noorudeen and Saradambal. The daughters of Noorudeen are the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 8586 and 8587 of 1987 (which were heard by the learned single Judge). On 4.3.1975, the daughters of Noorudeen entered into an agreement for sale of the property to one Sundaram. After the publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, the said Sundaram and the petitioners in the two writ petitions executed an agreement for sale in favour of Selliamman Koil Co-operative House Site Society Ltd., which was the petitioner in W.P. No. 2344 of 1983. The daughters of Noorudeen filed their objections, objecting to the acquisition during the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. Overruling the objections, the Collector recommended the acquisition to be proceeded with. Thereupon, the Government accepted the recommendation of the Collector and issued a declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 29.9.1978. After the proceedings under Sections 9(2) and 10, the awards had been passed on 28.2.1983 and 30.5.1983 in respect of parcels of the lands under acquisition. Mohan, J., who heard the writ petitions along with W.P. No. 2344 of 1986 filed by Selliamman Koil Co-operative House Site Society Ltd., after elaborately considering all the contentions raised before him, has dismissed these two writ petitions. Hence, these appeals. It cannot be gainsaid that these appellants have preferred the two writ petitions after a delay of 12 years reckoned from the date of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act or 9 years reckoned from the date of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act. They have not made any statement as to why they had approached this Court after such a long delay. As rightly pointed out by the learned single Judge, the appellants might have thought that; they having agreed to sell the property in favour of the Society, the Society would fight against the acquisition proceedings.</p><p>3. Mr. K. Ramamurthi, learned Counsel for the appellants, contending that the Court should take a liberal attitude in condonation of the delay and that this delay in the appellants approaching the Court should not stand in the way of granting the relief sought for by them, relied upon a decision of. the Supreme Court in Collector. Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji : (1987)ILLJ500SC , In that case, there was a delay of four days, and the said delay had not been condoned by the High Court. While dealing with such a situation, the Supreme Court has stated thus:</p><p>'Every day's delay must be explained does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made xxx xxx xxx</p><p>When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay.</p><p>In our view, the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in that case having regard to the facts of the case cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case in which, as pointed out earlier, there is a long delay of 12 years from the date of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and 9 years from the date of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act.</p><p>4. In this connection, we would like to point out that the Supreme Court in Hari Singh v. State of U.P. : [1984]3SCR417 , has dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay of 2-1/2 years. In the present case, the appellants had every knowledge of the acquisition since they admittedly filed their objections during the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act which was held on 10.12.1975 and 12.12.1975. Yet it did not occur to them that they should question the acquisition. As rightly pointed out by the learned Judge, probably these two appellants wanted somebody else to fight the battle.</p><p>5. Learned Counsel now states that the land acquired is proposed to be used for some purpose other than the one for which it was acquired. But he would fairly concede that there is no notification to that effect. The decision cited by the learned Counsel in Special Deputy Collector and Land Acquisition Officer, Salem Steel Plant, Salem v. Kuppu Gounder 1985 T.L.N.J. 284, in support of his contention cannot be of any help in this case since admittedly there is no notification that this land is going to be utilised for a purpose other than the one for which it was acquired. Under these circumstances, we see no merit in these appeals. These writ appeals are dismissed.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '(1987)2MLJ280', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Commissioner and Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Dep', 'sub' => 'Property', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'mymon-bi-vs-represented-commissioner' $args = array( (int) 0 => '793075', (int) 1 => 'mymon-bi-vs-represented-commissioner' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/793075/mymon-bi-vs-represented-commissioner' $ctype = ' High Court' $caseref = 'Salem v. Kuppu Gounder<br>' $content = array( (int) 0 => '<p>Ratnavel Pandian, J.', (int) 1 => '<p>1. These two appeals are preferred against the order of Mohan, J., made in W.P. Nos. 8586 and 8587 of 1987 dismissing those writ petitions which were filed challenging the validity, of the land acquisition proceedings taken out for public purpose, viz. for the creation of a new neighbourhood known as Kalaignar Karunanidhi Nagar.', (int) 2 => '<p>2. The brief facts of the case are as follows : A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was made on 29.8.1975, and it was published in the Gazette on 1.10.1975. The property was originally owned by one Noorudeen and Saradambal. The daughters of Noorudeen are the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 8586 and 8587 of 1987 (which were heard by the learned single Judge). On 4.3.1975, the daughters of Noorudeen entered into an agreement for sale of the property to one Sundaram. After the publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, the said Sundaram and the petitioners in the two writ petitions executed an agreement for sale in favour of Selliamman Koil Co-operative House Site Society Ltd., which was the petitioner in W.P. No. 2344 of 1983. The daughters of Noorudeen filed their objections, objecting to the acquisition during the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. Overruling the objections, the Collector recommended the acquisition to be proceeded with. Thereupon, the Government accepted the recommendation of the Collector and issued a declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 29.9.1978. After the proceedings under Sections 9(2) and 10, the awards had been passed on 28.2.1983 and 30.5.1983 in respect of parcels of the lands under acquisition. Mohan, J., who heard the writ petitions along with W.P. No. 2344 of 1986 filed by Selliamman Koil Co-operative House Site Society Ltd., after elaborately considering all the contentions raised before him, has dismissed these two writ petitions. Hence, these appeals. It cannot be gainsaid that these appellants have preferred the two writ petitions after a delay of 12 years reckoned from the date of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act or 9 years reckoned from the date of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act. They have not made any statement as to why they had approached this Court after such a long delay. As rightly pointed out by the learned single Judge, the appellants might have thought that; they having agreed to sell the property in favour of the Society, the Society would fight against the acquisition proceedings.', (int) 3 => '<p>3. Mr. K. Ramamurthi, learned Counsel for the appellants, contending that the Court should take a liberal attitude in condonation of the delay and that this delay in the appellants approaching the Court should not stand in the way of granting the relief sought for by them, relied upon a decision of. the Supreme Court in Collector. Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji : (1987)ILLJ500SC , In that case, there was a delay of four days, and the said delay had not been condoned by the High Court. While dealing with such a situation, the Supreme Court has stated thus:', (int) 4 => '<p>'Every day's delay must be explained does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made xxx xxx xxx', (int) 5 => '<p>When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay.', (int) 6 => '<p>In our view, the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in that case having regard to the facts of the case cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case in which, as pointed out earlier, there is a long delay of 12 years from the date of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and 9 years from the date of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act.', (int) 7 => '<p>4. In this connection, we would like to point out that the Supreme Court in Hari Singh v. State of U.P. : [1984]3SCR417 , has dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay of 2-1/2 years. In the present case, the appellants had every knowledge of the acquisition since they admittedly filed their objections during the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act which was held on 10.12.1975 and 12.12.1975. Yet it did not occur to them that they should question the acquisition. As rightly pointed out by the learned Judge, probably these two appellants wanted somebody else to fight the battle.', (int) 8 => '<p>5. Learned Counsel now states that the land acquired is proposed to be used for some purpose other than the one for which it was acquired. But he would fairly concede that there is no notification to that effect. The decision cited by the learned Counsel in Special Deputy Collector and Land Acquisition Officer, Salem Steel Plant, Salem v. Kuppu Gounder 1985 T.L.N.J. 284, in support of his contention cannot be of any help in this case since admittedly there is no notification that this land is going to be utilised for a purpose other than the one for which it was acquired. Under these circumstances, we see no merit in these appeals. These writ appeals are dismissed.<p>', (int) 9 => '<p>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 10 $i = (int) 7include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
4. In this connection, we would like to point out that the Supreme Court in Hari Singh v. State of U.P. : [1984]3SCR417 , has dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay of 2-1/2 years. In the present case, the appellants had every knowledge of the acquisition since they admittedly filed their objections during the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act which was held on 10.12.1975 and 12.12.1975. Yet it did not occur to them that they should question the acquisition. As rightly pointed out by the learned Judge, probably these two appellants wanted somebody else to fight the battle.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Mymon Bi and anr Vs State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Commissioner and Secretary Housing and Urban Development Department and anr - Citation 793075 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '793075', 'acts' => '', 'appealno' => '', 'appellant' => 'Mymon Bi and anr.', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Mymon Bi and anr. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Commissioner and Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department and anr.', 'casenote' => ' - - Overruling the objections, the Collector recommended the acquisition to be proceeded with. 4. In this connection, we would like to point out that the Supreme Court in Hari Singh v.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'Salem v. Kuppu Gounder;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => '', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Chennai', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1987-11-19', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => '', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Ratnavel Pandian, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. These two appeals are preferred against the order of Mohan, J., made in W.P. Nos. 8586 and 8587 of 1987 dismissing those writ petitions which were filed challenging the validity, of the land acquisition proceedings taken out for public purpose, viz. for the creation of a new neighbourhood known as Kalaignar Karunanidhi Nagar.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The brief facts of the case are as follows : A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was made on 29.8.1975, and it was published in the Gazette on 1.10.1975. The property was originally owned by one Noorudeen and Saradambal. The daughters of Noorudeen are the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 8586 and 8587 of 1987 (which were heard by the learned single Judge). On 4.3.1975, the daughters of Noorudeen entered into an agreement for sale of the property to one Sundaram. After the publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, the said Sundaram and the petitioners in the two writ petitions executed an agreement for sale in favour of Selliamman Koil Co-operative House Site Society Ltd., which was the petitioner in W.P. No. 2344 of 1983. The daughters of Noorudeen filed their objections, objecting to the acquisition during the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. Overruling the objections, the Collector recommended the acquisition to be proceeded with. Thereupon, the Government accepted the recommendation of the Collector and issued a declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 29.9.1978. After the proceedings under Sections 9(2) and 10, the awards had been passed on 28.2.1983 and 30.5.1983 in respect of parcels of the lands under acquisition. Mohan, J., who heard the writ petitions along with W.P. No. 2344 of 1986 filed by Selliamman Koil Co-operative House Site Society Ltd., after elaborately considering all the contentions raised before him, has dismissed these two writ petitions. Hence, these appeals. It cannot be gainsaid that these appellants have preferred the two writ petitions after a delay of 12 years reckoned from the date of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act or 9 years reckoned from the date of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act. They have not made any statement as to why they had approached this Court after such a long delay. As rightly pointed out by the learned single Judge, the appellants might have thought that; they having agreed to sell the property in favour of the Society, the Society would fight against the acquisition proceedings.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Mr. K. Ramamurthi, learned Counsel for the appellants, contending that the Court should take a liberal attitude in condonation of the delay and that this delay in the appellants approaching the Court should not stand in the way of granting the relief sought for by them, relied upon a decision of. the Supreme Court in Collector. Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji : (1987)ILLJ500SC , In that case, there was a delay of four days, and the said delay had not been condoned by the High Court. While dealing with such a situation, the Supreme Court has stated thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Every day's delay must be explained does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made xxx xxx xxx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In our view, the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in that case having regard to the facts of the case cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case in which, as pointed out earlier, there is a long delay of 12 years from the date of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and 9 years from the date of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In this connection, we would like to point out that the Supreme Court in Hari Singh v. State of U.P. : [1984]3SCR417 , has dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay of 2-1/2 years. In the present case, the appellants had every knowledge of the acquisition since they admittedly filed their objections during the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act which was held on 10.12.1975 and 12.12.1975. Yet it did not occur to them that they should question the acquisition. As rightly pointed out by the learned Judge, probably these two appellants wanted somebody else to fight the battle.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Learned Counsel now states that the land acquired is proposed to be used for some purpose other than the one for which it was acquired. But he would fairly concede that there is no notification to that effect. The decision cited by the learned Counsel in Special Deputy Collector and Land Acquisition Officer, Salem Steel Plant, Salem v. Kuppu Gounder 1985 T.L.N.J. 284, in support of his contention cannot be of any help in this case since admittedly there is no notification that this land is going to be utilised for a purpose other than the one for which it was acquired. Under these circumstances, we see no merit in these appeals. These writ appeals are dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '(1987)2MLJ280', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Commissioner and Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Dep', 'sub' => 'Property', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'mymon-bi-vs-represented-commissioner', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '793075', (int) 1 => 'mymon-bi-vs-represented-commissioner' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Mymon Bi and anr Vs State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Commissioner and Secretary Housing and Urban Development Department and anr - Citation 793075 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '793075', 'acts' => '', 'appealno' => '', 'appellant' => 'Mymon Bi and anr.', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Mymon Bi and anr. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Commissioner and Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department and anr.', 'casenote' => ' - - Overruling the objections, the Collector recommended the acquisition to be proceeded with. 4. In this connection, we would like to point out that the Supreme Court in Hari Singh v.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'Salem v. Kuppu Gounder;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => '', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Chennai', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1987-11-19', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => '', 'judgement' => '<p>Ratnavel Pandian, J.</p><p>1. These two appeals are preferred against the order of Mohan, J., made in W.P. Nos. 8586 and 8587 of 1987 dismissing those writ petitions which were filed challenging the validity, of the land acquisition proceedings taken out for public purpose, viz. for the creation of a new neighbourhood known as Kalaignar Karunanidhi Nagar.</p><p>2. The brief facts of the case are as follows : A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was made on 29.8.1975, and it was published in the Gazette on 1.10.1975. The property was originally owned by one Noorudeen and Saradambal. The daughters of Noorudeen are the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 8586 and 8587 of 1987 (which were heard by the learned single Judge). On 4.3.1975, the daughters of Noorudeen entered into an agreement for sale of the property to one Sundaram. After the publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, the said Sundaram and the petitioners in the two writ petitions executed an agreement for sale in favour of Selliamman Koil Co-operative House Site Society Ltd., which was the petitioner in W.P. No. 2344 of 1983. The daughters of Noorudeen filed their objections, objecting to the acquisition during the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. Overruling the objections, the Collector recommended the acquisition to be proceeded with. Thereupon, the Government accepted the recommendation of the Collector and issued a declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 29.9.1978. After the proceedings under Sections 9(2) and 10, the awards had been passed on 28.2.1983 and 30.5.1983 in respect of parcels of the lands under acquisition. Mohan, J., who heard the writ petitions along with W.P. No. 2344 of 1986 filed by Selliamman Koil Co-operative House Site Society Ltd., after elaborately considering all the contentions raised before him, has dismissed these two writ petitions. Hence, these appeals. It cannot be gainsaid that these appellants have preferred the two writ petitions after a delay of 12 years reckoned from the date of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act or 9 years reckoned from the date of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act. They have not made any statement as to why they had approached this Court after such a long delay. As rightly pointed out by the learned single Judge, the appellants might have thought that; they having agreed to sell the property in favour of the Society, the Society would fight against the acquisition proceedings.</p><p>3. Mr. K. Ramamurthi, learned Counsel for the appellants, contending that the Court should take a liberal attitude in condonation of the delay and that this delay in the appellants approaching the Court should not stand in the way of granting the relief sought for by them, relied upon a decision of. the Supreme Court in Collector. Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji : (1987)ILLJ500SC , In that case, there was a delay of four days, and the said delay had not been condoned by the High Court. While dealing with such a situation, the Supreme Court has stated thus:</p><p>'Every day's delay must be explained does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made xxx xxx xxx</p><p>When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay.</p><p>In our view, the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in that case having regard to the facts of the case cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case in which, as pointed out earlier, there is a long delay of 12 years from the date of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and 9 years from the date of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act.</p><p>4. In this connection, we would like to point out that the Supreme Court in Hari Singh v. State of U.P. : [1984]3SCR417 , has dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay of 2-1/2 years. In the present case, the appellants had every knowledge of the acquisition since they admittedly filed their objections during the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act which was held on 10.12.1975 and 12.12.1975. Yet it did not occur to them that they should question the acquisition. As rightly pointed out by the learned Judge, probably these two appellants wanted somebody else to fight the battle.</p><p>5. Learned Counsel now states that the land acquired is proposed to be used for some purpose other than the one for which it was acquired. But he would fairly concede that there is no notification to that effect. The decision cited by the learned Counsel in Special Deputy Collector and Land Acquisition Officer, Salem Steel Plant, Salem v. Kuppu Gounder 1985 T.L.N.J. 284, in support of his contention cannot be of any help in this case since admittedly there is no notification that this land is going to be utilised for a purpose other than the one for which it was acquired. Under these circumstances, we see no merit in these appeals. These writ appeals are dismissed.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '(1987)2MLJ280', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Commissioner and Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Dep', 'sub' => 'Property', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'mymon-bi-vs-represented-commissioner' $args = array( (int) 0 => '793075', (int) 1 => 'mymon-bi-vs-represented-commissioner' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/793075/mymon-bi-vs-represented-commissioner' $ctype = ' High Court' $caseref = 'Salem v. Kuppu Gounder<br>' $content = array( (int) 0 => '<p>Ratnavel Pandian, J.', (int) 1 => '<p>1. These two appeals are preferred against the order of Mohan, J., made in W.P. Nos. 8586 and 8587 of 1987 dismissing those writ petitions which were filed challenging the validity, of the land acquisition proceedings taken out for public purpose, viz. for the creation of a new neighbourhood known as Kalaignar Karunanidhi Nagar.', (int) 2 => '<p>2. The brief facts of the case are as follows : A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was made on 29.8.1975, and it was published in the Gazette on 1.10.1975. The property was originally owned by one Noorudeen and Saradambal. The daughters of Noorudeen are the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 8586 and 8587 of 1987 (which were heard by the learned single Judge). On 4.3.1975, the daughters of Noorudeen entered into an agreement for sale of the property to one Sundaram. After the publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, the said Sundaram and the petitioners in the two writ petitions executed an agreement for sale in favour of Selliamman Koil Co-operative House Site Society Ltd., which was the petitioner in W.P. No. 2344 of 1983. The daughters of Noorudeen filed their objections, objecting to the acquisition during the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. Overruling the objections, the Collector recommended the acquisition to be proceeded with. Thereupon, the Government accepted the recommendation of the Collector and issued a declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 29.9.1978. After the proceedings under Sections 9(2) and 10, the awards had been passed on 28.2.1983 and 30.5.1983 in respect of parcels of the lands under acquisition. Mohan, J., who heard the writ petitions along with W.P. No. 2344 of 1986 filed by Selliamman Koil Co-operative House Site Society Ltd., after elaborately considering all the contentions raised before him, has dismissed these two writ petitions. Hence, these appeals. It cannot be gainsaid that these appellants have preferred the two writ petitions after a delay of 12 years reckoned from the date of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act or 9 years reckoned from the date of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act. They have not made any statement as to why they had approached this Court after such a long delay. As rightly pointed out by the learned single Judge, the appellants might have thought that; they having agreed to sell the property in favour of the Society, the Society would fight against the acquisition proceedings.', (int) 3 => '<p>3. Mr. K. Ramamurthi, learned Counsel for the appellants, contending that the Court should take a liberal attitude in condonation of the delay and that this delay in the appellants approaching the Court should not stand in the way of granting the relief sought for by them, relied upon a decision of. the Supreme Court in Collector. Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji : (1987)ILLJ500SC , In that case, there was a delay of four days, and the said delay had not been condoned by the High Court. While dealing with such a situation, the Supreme Court has stated thus:', (int) 4 => '<p>'Every day's delay must be explained does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made xxx xxx xxx', (int) 5 => '<p>When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay.', (int) 6 => '<p>In our view, the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in that case having regard to the facts of the case cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case in which, as pointed out earlier, there is a long delay of 12 years from the date of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and 9 years from the date of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act.', (int) 7 => '<p>4. In this connection, we would like to point out that the Supreme Court in Hari Singh v. State of U.P. : [1984]3SCR417 , has dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay of 2-1/2 years. In the present case, the appellants had every knowledge of the acquisition since they admittedly filed their objections during the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act which was held on 10.12.1975 and 12.12.1975. Yet it did not occur to them that they should question the acquisition. As rightly pointed out by the learned Judge, probably these two appellants wanted somebody else to fight the battle.', (int) 8 => '<p>5. Learned Counsel now states that the land acquired is proposed to be used for some purpose other than the one for which it was acquired. But he would fairly concede that there is no notification to that effect. The decision cited by the learned Counsel in Special Deputy Collector and Land Acquisition Officer, Salem Steel Plant, Salem v. Kuppu Gounder 1985 T.L.N.J. 284, in support of his contention cannot be of any help in this case since admittedly there is no notification that this land is going to be utilised for a purpose other than the one for which it was acquired. Under these circumstances, we see no merit in these appeals. These writ appeals are dismissed.<p>', (int) 9 => '<p>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 10 $i = (int) 8include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
5. Learned Counsel now states that the land acquired is proposed to be used for some purpose other than the one for which it was acquired. But he would fairly concede that there is no notification to that effect. The decision cited by the learned Counsel in Special Deputy Collector and Land Acquisition Officer, Salem Steel Plant, Salem v. Kuppu Gounder 1985 T.L.N.J. 284, in support of his contention cannot be of any help in this case since admittedly there is no notification that this land is going to be utilised for a purpose other than the one for which it was acquired. Under these circumstances, we see no merit in these appeals. These writ appeals are dismissed.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Mymon Bi and anr Vs State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Commissioner and Secretary Housing and Urban Development Department and anr - Citation 793075 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '793075', 'acts' => '', 'appealno' => '', 'appellant' => 'Mymon Bi and anr.', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Mymon Bi and anr. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Commissioner and Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department and anr.', 'casenote' => ' - - Overruling the objections, the Collector recommended the acquisition to be proceeded with. 4. In this connection, we would like to point out that the Supreme Court in Hari Singh v.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'Salem v. Kuppu Gounder;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => '', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Chennai', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1987-11-19', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => '', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Ratnavel Pandian, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. These two appeals are preferred against the order of Mohan, J., made in W.P. Nos. 8586 and 8587 of 1987 dismissing those writ petitions which were filed challenging the validity, of the land acquisition proceedings taken out for public purpose, viz. for the creation of a new neighbourhood known as Kalaignar Karunanidhi Nagar.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The brief facts of the case are as follows : A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was made on 29.8.1975, and it was published in the Gazette on 1.10.1975. The property was originally owned by one Noorudeen and Saradambal. The daughters of Noorudeen are the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 8586 and 8587 of 1987 (which were heard by the learned single Judge). On 4.3.1975, the daughters of Noorudeen entered into an agreement for sale of the property to one Sundaram. After the publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, the said Sundaram and the petitioners in the two writ petitions executed an agreement for sale in favour of Selliamman Koil Co-operative House Site Society Ltd., which was the petitioner in W.P. No. 2344 of 1983. The daughters of Noorudeen filed their objections, objecting to the acquisition during the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. Overruling the objections, the Collector recommended the acquisition to be proceeded with. Thereupon, the Government accepted the recommendation of the Collector and issued a declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 29.9.1978. After the proceedings under Sections 9(2) and 10, the awards had been passed on 28.2.1983 and 30.5.1983 in respect of parcels of the lands under acquisition. Mohan, J., who heard the writ petitions along with W.P. No. 2344 of 1986 filed by Selliamman Koil Co-operative House Site Society Ltd., after elaborately considering all the contentions raised before him, has dismissed these two writ petitions. Hence, these appeals. It cannot be gainsaid that these appellants have preferred the two writ petitions after a delay of 12 years reckoned from the date of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act or 9 years reckoned from the date of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act. They have not made any statement as to why they had approached this Court after such a long delay. As rightly pointed out by the learned single Judge, the appellants might have thought that; they having agreed to sell the property in favour of the Society, the Society would fight against the acquisition proceedings.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Mr. K. Ramamurthi, learned Counsel for the appellants, contending that the Court should take a liberal attitude in condonation of the delay and that this delay in the appellants approaching the Court should not stand in the way of granting the relief sought for by them, relied upon a decision of. the Supreme Court in Collector. Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji : (1987)ILLJ500SC , In that case, there was a delay of four days, and the said delay had not been condoned by the High Court. While dealing with such a situation, the Supreme Court has stated thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Every day's delay must be explained does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made xxx xxx xxx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In our view, the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in that case having regard to the facts of the case cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case in which, as pointed out earlier, there is a long delay of 12 years from the date of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and 9 years from the date of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In this connection, we would like to point out that the Supreme Court in Hari Singh v. State of U.P. : [1984]3SCR417 , has dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay of 2-1/2 years. In the present case, the appellants had every knowledge of the acquisition since they admittedly filed their objections during the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act which was held on 10.12.1975 and 12.12.1975. Yet it did not occur to them that they should question the acquisition. As rightly pointed out by the learned Judge, probably these two appellants wanted somebody else to fight the battle.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Learned Counsel now states that the land acquired is proposed to be used for some purpose other than the one for which it was acquired. But he would fairly concede that there is no notification to that effect. The decision cited by the learned Counsel in Special Deputy Collector and Land Acquisition Officer, Salem Steel Plant, Salem v. Kuppu Gounder 1985 T.L.N.J. 284, in support of his contention cannot be of any help in this case since admittedly there is no notification that this land is going to be utilised for a purpose other than the one for which it was acquired. Under these circumstances, we see no merit in these appeals. These writ appeals are dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '(1987)2MLJ280', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Commissioner and Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Dep', 'sub' => 'Property', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'mymon-bi-vs-represented-commissioner', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '793075', (int) 1 => 'mymon-bi-vs-represented-commissioner' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Mymon Bi and anr Vs State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Commissioner and Secretary Housing and Urban Development Department and anr - Citation 793075 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '793075', 'acts' => '', 'appealno' => '', 'appellant' => 'Mymon Bi and anr.', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Mymon Bi and anr. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Commissioner and Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department and anr.', 'casenote' => ' - - Overruling the objections, the Collector recommended the acquisition to be proceeded with. 4. In this connection, we would like to point out that the Supreme Court in Hari Singh v.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'Salem v. Kuppu Gounder;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => '', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Chennai', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1987-11-19', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => '', 'judgement' => '<p>Ratnavel Pandian, J.</p><p>1. These two appeals are preferred against the order of Mohan, J., made in W.P. Nos. 8586 and 8587 of 1987 dismissing those writ petitions which were filed challenging the validity, of the land acquisition proceedings taken out for public purpose, viz. for the creation of a new neighbourhood known as Kalaignar Karunanidhi Nagar.</p><p>2. The brief facts of the case are as follows : A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was made on 29.8.1975, and it was published in the Gazette on 1.10.1975. The property was originally owned by one Noorudeen and Saradambal. The daughters of Noorudeen are the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 8586 and 8587 of 1987 (which were heard by the learned single Judge). On 4.3.1975, the daughters of Noorudeen entered into an agreement for sale of the property to one Sundaram. After the publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, the said Sundaram and the petitioners in the two writ petitions executed an agreement for sale in favour of Selliamman Koil Co-operative House Site Society Ltd., which was the petitioner in W.P. No. 2344 of 1983. The daughters of Noorudeen filed their objections, objecting to the acquisition during the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. Overruling the objections, the Collector recommended the acquisition to be proceeded with. Thereupon, the Government accepted the recommendation of the Collector and issued a declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 29.9.1978. After the proceedings under Sections 9(2) and 10, the awards had been passed on 28.2.1983 and 30.5.1983 in respect of parcels of the lands under acquisition. Mohan, J., who heard the writ petitions along with W.P. No. 2344 of 1986 filed by Selliamman Koil Co-operative House Site Society Ltd., after elaborately considering all the contentions raised before him, has dismissed these two writ petitions. Hence, these appeals. It cannot be gainsaid that these appellants have preferred the two writ petitions after a delay of 12 years reckoned from the date of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act or 9 years reckoned from the date of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act. They have not made any statement as to why they had approached this Court after such a long delay. As rightly pointed out by the learned single Judge, the appellants might have thought that; they having agreed to sell the property in favour of the Society, the Society would fight against the acquisition proceedings.</p><p>3. Mr. K. Ramamurthi, learned Counsel for the appellants, contending that the Court should take a liberal attitude in condonation of the delay and that this delay in the appellants approaching the Court should not stand in the way of granting the relief sought for by them, relied upon a decision of. the Supreme Court in Collector. Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji : (1987)ILLJ500SC , In that case, there was a delay of four days, and the said delay had not been condoned by the High Court. While dealing with such a situation, the Supreme Court has stated thus:</p><p>'Every day's delay must be explained does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made xxx xxx xxx</p><p>When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay.</p><p>In our view, the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in that case having regard to the facts of the case cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case in which, as pointed out earlier, there is a long delay of 12 years from the date of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and 9 years from the date of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act.</p><p>4. In this connection, we would like to point out that the Supreme Court in Hari Singh v. State of U.P. : [1984]3SCR417 , has dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay of 2-1/2 years. In the present case, the appellants had every knowledge of the acquisition since they admittedly filed their objections during the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act which was held on 10.12.1975 and 12.12.1975. Yet it did not occur to them that they should question the acquisition. As rightly pointed out by the learned Judge, probably these two appellants wanted somebody else to fight the battle.</p><p>5. Learned Counsel now states that the land acquired is proposed to be used for some purpose other than the one for which it was acquired. But he would fairly concede that there is no notification to that effect. The decision cited by the learned Counsel in Special Deputy Collector and Land Acquisition Officer, Salem Steel Plant, Salem v. Kuppu Gounder 1985 T.L.N.J. 284, in support of his contention cannot be of any help in this case since admittedly there is no notification that this land is going to be utilised for a purpose other than the one for which it was acquired. Under these circumstances, we see no merit in these appeals. These writ appeals are dismissed.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '(1987)2MLJ280', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Commissioner and Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Dep', 'sub' => 'Property', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'mymon-bi-vs-represented-commissioner' $args = array( (int) 0 => '793075', (int) 1 => 'mymon-bi-vs-represented-commissioner' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/793075/mymon-bi-vs-represented-commissioner' $ctype = ' High Court' $caseref = 'Salem v. Kuppu Gounder<br>' $content = array( (int) 0 => '<p>Ratnavel Pandian, J.', (int) 1 => '<p>1. These two appeals are preferred against the order of Mohan, J., made in W.P. Nos. 8586 and 8587 of 1987 dismissing those writ petitions which were filed challenging the validity, of the land acquisition proceedings taken out for public purpose, viz. for the creation of a new neighbourhood known as Kalaignar Karunanidhi Nagar.', (int) 2 => '<p>2. The brief facts of the case are as follows : A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was made on 29.8.1975, and it was published in the Gazette on 1.10.1975. The property was originally owned by one Noorudeen and Saradambal. The daughters of Noorudeen are the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 8586 and 8587 of 1987 (which were heard by the learned single Judge). On 4.3.1975, the daughters of Noorudeen entered into an agreement for sale of the property to one Sundaram. After the publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, the said Sundaram and the petitioners in the two writ petitions executed an agreement for sale in favour of Selliamman Koil Co-operative House Site Society Ltd., which was the petitioner in W.P. No. 2344 of 1983. The daughters of Noorudeen filed their objections, objecting to the acquisition during the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. Overruling the objections, the Collector recommended the acquisition to be proceeded with. Thereupon, the Government accepted the recommendation of the Collector and issued a declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 29.9.1978. After the proceedings under Sections 9(2) and 10, the awards had been passed on 28.2.1983 and 30.5.1983 in respect of parcels of the lands under acquisition. Mohan, J., who heard the writ petitions along with W.P. No. 2344 of 1986 filed by Selliamman Koil Co-operative House Site Society Ltd., after elaborately considering all the contentions raised before him, has dismissed these two writ petitions. Hence, these appeals. It cannot be gainsaid that these appellants have preferred the two writ petitions after a delay of 12 years reckoned from the date of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act or 9 years reckoned from the date of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act. They have not made any statement as to why they had approached this Court after such a long delay. As rightly pointed out by the learned single Judge, the appellants might have thought that; they having agreed to sell the property in favour of the Society, the Society would fight against the acquisition proceedings.', (int) 3 => '<p>3. Mr. K. Ramamurthi, learned Counsel for the appellants, contending that the Court should take a liberal attitude in condonation of the delay and that this delay in the appellants approaching the Court should not stand in the way of granting the relief sought for by them, relied upon a decision of. the Supreme Court in Collector. Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji : (1987)ILLJ500SC , In that case, there was a delay of four days, and the said delay had not been condoned by the High Court. While dealing with such a situation, the Supreme Court has stated thus:', (int) 4 => '<p>'Every day's delay must be explained does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made xxx xxx xxx', (int) 5 => '<p>When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay.', (int) 6 => '<p>In our view, the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in that case having regard to the facts of the case cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case in which, as pointed out earlier, there is a long delay of 12 years from the date of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and 9 years from the date of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act.', (int) 7 => '<p>4. In this connection, we would like to point out that the Supreme Court in Hari Singh v. State of U.P. : [1984]3SCR417 , has dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay of 2-1/2 years. In the present case, the appellants had every knowledge of the acquisition since they admittedly filed their objections during the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act which was held on 10.12.1975 and 12.12.1975. Yet it did not occur to them that they should question the acquisition. As rightly pointed out by the learned Judge, probably these two appellants wanted somebody else to fight the battle.', (int) 8 => '<p>5. Learned Counsel now states that the land acquired is proposed to be used for some purpose other than the one for which it was acquired. But he would fairly concede that there is no notification to that effect. The decision cited by the learned Counsel in Special Deputy Collector and Land Acquisition Officer, Salem Steel Plant, Salem v. Kuppu Gounder 1985 T.L.N.J. 284, in support of his contention cannot be of any help in this case since admittedly there is no notification that this land is going to be utilised for a purpose other than the one for which it was acquired. Under these circumstances, we see no merit in these appeals. These writ appeals are dismissed.<p>', (int) 9 => '<p>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 10 $i = (int) 9include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109