Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

22.The point of difference in the two judgments arose as to the next course of action to be taken. In the lead judgment, the impugned order in the writ petition directing eviction was set aside and the Government was directed to reconsider the representation for assignment of the lands encroached keeping in mind the orders of the Government assigning the lands to other educational institutions.

23.Consequently, the points of difference between the lead judgment and the dissenting judgment is whether the order impugned in the writ petition, which is the proceedings dated 01.03.2004 of the Special Commissioner / Commissioner of Land Administration, Chennai should be quashed and a direction can be given to the Government to assign lands or whether the order impugned in the writ petition should be uphold and a direction be given to the Government to repossess the lands.

24.In fact, in the lead judgment, the impugned order dated 01.03.2004 was quashed, whereas, in the dissenting judgment, it was upheld. As a corollary, in the lead judgment, the Government was directed to examine the representation of the respondents for assignment of the lands, whereas, in the dissenting judgment, the Government was directed to repossess the lands. Conditions were imposed in the lead judgment that the respondents should deposit a sum of Rs.10 crores and in the dissenting judgment, it was held that the lands should be repossessed by erecting a fence within a period of four weeks and security must be provided and further an enquiry must be made against the officials, who had permitted such encroachment.

31.This argument has proved to be the divergent point between the lead judgment and the dissenting judgment. In the lead judgment, the arguments advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents were accepted and a direction was given to the Government to consider assignment of lands keeping in mind the assignments granted by the Government to other educational institutions and a further direction was also issued that the respondents should deposit a sum of Rs.10 crores as a pre-condition for the Government to consider the representation. In the dissenting judgment, the arguments of the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents were rejected and the Government was directed to take possession of the lands within a period of four weeks.

Conclusion:-

54.These reasons compel me to concur with the dissenting judgment.

55.In the result, this reference with respect to the point of difference stands ordered concurring with the dissenting judgment. No costs. 

cmr										21.08.2018
Index:Yes/No 
Web:Yes/No 
Speaking/Non Speaking
Note:Issue order copy on 23.08.2018

To

1.The Secretary to Government,
   State of Tamil Nadu,
   Revenue Department, Fort. St.George,
   Chennai  600 009.

2.The Special Commissioner and 
     Commissioner of Land Administration,
   Chepauk, Chennai  600 005.

3.The District Revenue Officer, Thanjavur.

4.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Thanjavur.

5.Tha Tahsildar, Thanjavur.

6.The Principal Secretary to Government,
   State of Tamil Nadu,
    Home (Prisons) Department, Chennai  600 009.

7.The Additional Director General of Police /
      Inspector General of Prisons,
    CMDA Tower -II, Egmore, Chennai-600 008.


C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.

cmr

	








Pre-delivery Judgment in



















21.08.2018