M.Sampath vs The Secretary on 25 April, 2013
In yet another decision reported in (2008) I MLJ 838 Tessy John v. Principal Commr. & Commr. of Land Reforms, in paragraphs 13 to 16, this Court has held as follows:-
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (1.04 seconds)N.S.Jaya vs The Secretary on 6 February, 2009
In Tessy John Vs. Principal Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Reforms (2008 (1) MLJ 838), this Court had held as follows:
Haripriya Rayaningar vs The Secretary To Government on 11 November, 2010
In Tessy John Vs. Principal Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Reforms Chennai and others, reported in (2008) 1 MLJ 838, this Court held that when the acquisition proceedings were not initiated against the real land owner and that when the real owner was not served with proper notices in terms of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, the entire exercise of acquisition is an exercise in futility and it would also amount to deprivation of the property of real owner by misusing the power vested under the Act. Though a contention has been made that physical possession of the property acquired has not been taken over from the land owner and she continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the said property, the very initiation of the acquisition proceedings was found to be erroneous. Except to the issue relating to taking over possession, the judgment is not applicable to the case on hand.
B.Valarmathi vs The Government Of Tamilnadu on 9 February, 2011
In the given circumstances, since the repealed Act in particular Section-4 thereof would run only in favour of the petitioner's case and not that of the respondents, this Court could safely conclude in line with the observation made in (Tessy John v. Principal Commr.& Commr. of Land Reforms) 2008 1 MLJ 383, to the effect that when the physical possession of the property has not been taken over from the land owner who continues to be in possession and enjoyment of the property, the land owner is entitled to have the benefit under Section 4 of the repealed Act.
R.Ekambaram vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 30 November, 2012
In Tessy John Vs. Principal Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Reforms (2008 (1) MLJ 838), this Court had held as follows:
Mrs.K.Jayalakshmi vs The Principal Commissioner And on 30 November, 2012
In Tessy John Vs. Principal Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Reforms (2008 (1) MLJ 838), this Court had held as follows:
Renuka Devi vs The Assistant Commissioner on 28 November, 2008
3. Under Rule 10 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, the Notice will have to be sent under Rule 8 (2) (a) by sending the same by Registered Post addressed to the person concerned. This aspect has been considered by me in the decision in Tessy John Vs. Principal Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Reforms, Chennai & Others, reported in 2008 (1) MLJ 838. Following the two earlier Division Bench judgements of this Court, I have held as follows:-
1