Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
1BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED : 31.10.2011CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIANWrit Petition(MD)No.8792 of 20111.Palanichamy Gounder2.Vellaisamy Gounder... PetitionersVs.
The District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul.
The Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar and Welfare Officer, Palani, Dindigul District. ... RespondentsPRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India forthe issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating tothe proceedings made in No.Na.Ka.1656/06A on the file of the 2ndrespondent and quash the same. For Petitioners : Mr.V.Kannan For Respondents : Mr.R.Karthikeyan, Additional Government Pleader.
O R D E RThe petitioners have come up with the above writ petitionchallenging a memo issued by the second respondent calling upon thepetitioners to remove the encroachments by themselves from the landsacquired under Tamil Nadu Act 13 of 1978.2.Heard Mr.V.Kannan, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr.R.Karthikeyan, learned Additional Government Pleader, takes notice forthe respondents.
The fact that the lands in question belonged to thepetitioners, is not in dispute. But unfortunately for the petitioners, the respondents initiated proceedings for the acquisition of the saidland under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978. The enquiry notice under Section 3(1)of the Act was attempted to be served on the petitioners but theyrefused. However, the petitioners participated in the enquiry held on21.01.1999 and objected to the acquisition. The objections were overruledand a notice under Section 4(1) was published in the District Gazette on16.02.1999 itself. An award enquiry was conducted on 19.03.1999 and awardwas also passed. Thus, the whole proceedings for acquisition have alreadybeen concluded at least 12 years ago.
Moreover, the attempt made by the petitioners to challenge theacquisition in the year 2008 by filing W.P.(MD)No.5751 of 2008 failed, with its dismissal by an order dated 29.06.2010. The petitioners have nottaken up the order passed in the writ petition, any further. Therefore, asecond writ petition challenging the impugned communication wouldvirtually lead to reopening the issue settled in the previous writ https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2petition.
Therefore, the writ petition cannot be entertained. Hence, itis dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition isclosed. Sd/-Assistant Registrar (AE)/True Copy/Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)To1.The District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul. 2. The Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar and Welfare Officer, Palani, Dindigul District. SmsGH : 14.11.2011 : 2p/3cWrit Petition(MD)No.8792 of 201131.10.2011
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.