Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Monday, Nov 05, 2007
ePaper
Online edition of India's National Newspaper Monday, Nov 05, 2007 ePaper |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Tamil Nadu |
|
News:
ePaper |
Front Page |
National |
Tamil Nadu |
Andhra Pradesh |
Karnataka |
Kerala |
New Delhi |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Engagements |
Advts: Retail Plus | Classifieds | Jobs | Obituary |
Tamil Nadu
CHENNAI: A Division Bench of the Madras High Court has referred a land acquisition case, under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act 1978, to a larger Bench stating that the court’s Full Bench ruling on the matter ran counter to a Supreme Court judgment. Justice Elipe Dharma Rao and Justice S. Palanivelu, passing orders on the writ appeal of Soundaravalli Ammal of North Arcot district, said neither Section 5-A nor any other provision of the Act contemplated “second opportunity” to be given to the land owners. The Judges pointed out that in the Ananthi Ammal’s case, the Supreme Court had held “in no uncertain terms” that the Act was intra vires the Constitution, except Section 11(1), which provided for the payment of compensation amount in instalments. The matter related to the acquisition of lands in 1995 to provide house sites for Adi Dravidars. After a single judge dismissed petitions against the acquisition, an appeal was preferred before the present Division Bench. The appellant, citing a Full Bench judgment of the Madras High Court, said the failure of the Special Tahsildar to serve a copy of his report to her deprived her of a chance to make further representation, and hence the acquisition proceedings should be quashed. The Full Bench, in its order, had stated that the owner of the acquired land was entitled to a copy of the authorised officer and that it would give the owner an opportunity to file further representation before the appropriate authority. “Second opportunity”The present Bench, reiterating that none of the provisions of the Act contemplated a “second opportunity” to be given to land owners, pointed out that the Supreme Court too had upheld the entire Act, except for one provision. Stating that the Full Bench relied on service jurisprudence, the Division Bench said service jurisprudence was “quite distinct and separate law from the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act 1978.” Citing the apex court ruling, it further said the opportunities provided for landowners in the Act were sufficient to protect their interests and no further opportunity need be given to the land owners regarding acquisition proceedings. Unnecessary delayIf “second opportunity” is given to the land owner to know whether his objections were properly considered by the authorities or not, it will cause unnecessary delay in the land acquisition proceedings defeating the very object of the Act, the Judges said, and directed the Registry to place the papers before the Chief Justice to be referred to a larger Bench.
Printer friendly
page
News:
ePaper |
Front Page |
National |
Tamil Nadu |
Andhra Pradesh |
Karnataka |
Kerala |
New Delhi |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Engagements |
|
|
|
The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription Group Sites: The Hindu | The Hindu ePaper | Business Line | Business Line ePaper | Sportstar | Frontline | Publications | eBooks | Images | Home |
Copyright © 2007, The
Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of
this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of
The Hindu
|
