Chennai Court February 2004 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Jainabi, Rep. by Her Power Agent Shaik Ali Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-2004
Reported in: 2004(1)CTC664; (2004)2MLJ386
ORDERV.S. Sirpurkar, J. 1. The challenge is to the Land Acquisition Proceedings. In this case, the proceedings are under the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 (Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978).2. The notice under Section 4(1) of the Act was served on 18.11.1995 for which the landlord claims to have sent her objections on 9.12.1995. Thereafter, declaration came to be made on 19.6.1996.3. The only point agitated by the landlord in the whole proceedings is that the order which the Collector has passed under Section 4 (3) of the Act has not been served upon the landlord and, therefore, that order has become non est and bad in law.4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner took me through the provisions of Section 4 of the Act, which reads as under:-'4. Power to acquire land.--(1) Where the District Collector is satisfied that for the purpose of any Harijan Welfare Scheme, it is necessary to acquire any land, he may acquire the land by publishing i...
Ganesan and Seetharaman Vs. Porkilai (Deceased),
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-2004
Reported in: (2004)1MLJ720
ORDER1. This revision petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the II Additional District Judge, Pondicherry in the petition for review of the judgment dated 1.12.1981 in A.S.No.71 of 1981 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Pondicherry. The revision petitioners filed the review application mainly on the ground that the first petitioner was made to believe and sign a joint endorsement fraudulently in A.S.No.71 of 1981 and that therefore the said joint endorsement as well as the judgment rendered on that basis have to be reviewed. While the petition was posted for arguments on 28.4.1994, the petitioners' counsel reported want of instructions and in spite of such circumstance, the petition was dismissed on merits. Hence, the revision.2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. Though the names of the respondents 2 to 7 printed in the list, they have neither appeared in person nor represented through counsel.3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner ...
Maruthi Minerals Rep. by Its Partner Sri P. Thavasiraj Vs. the State o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Mad281; 2004(2)CTC421; (2004)2MLJ58
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. Both the writ petitions have been filed by the same petitioner, viz., M/s.Maruthi Minerals, represented by its partner Mr.P.Thavasiraj. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to in this order as per their rank in W.P.No.1662 of 1997.2. In brief, the petitioner has made an application, dated 13.4.1993 in Form No.I to the second respondent under Rule 22(1) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (hereinafter will be referred to as 'the Rules' for short) for the grant of mining lease to quarry garnet sand. In the said application, against Column (viii), namely, the extent of the area for which the mining lease was required, the petitioner has mentioned that they require 42.09 acres of stream beds of Musiri Taluk in Trichy District lying in Government Poramboke lands. While giving the details of the area in respect of which the mining lease was required, as contemplated under Clause (ix) in Form No.I, the petitioner has mentioned the names of the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›