Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.55 seconds)

V.Nandakumar vs Union Of India on 5 October, 2009

In para 8 of the Division Bench decision of this court reported in 2006 (5) CTC 634 (THE GENERAL MANAGER (TECH) AND PROJECT DIRECTOR V. SRIDEVI), it is clearly stated that when the notification speaks about the plans and other details of the lands covered under the notification would be available and could be inspected by the interested persons in the office of the competent authority that itself is sufficient. Para 8 of the said decision of the Division Bench is extracted hereunder:-
Madras High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Shri Andal Alagar Kalyana Mandapam ... vs The Union Of India (Uoi) Rep. By Its ... on 16 February, 2007

and Project Director, National Highways Authority of India v. Mrs. Sridevi and Ors. , whereby the Division Bench distinguished the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court with reference to the specific statement made in the notification itself to the effect that the land plans and other details can be inspected by any person interested at the Office of the Competent Authority.

Shri Andal Alagar Kalyana Mandapam vs The Union Of India Rep on 16 February, 2007

and Project Director, National Highways Authority of India vs. Mrs.Sridevi and Others (2006 (5) CTC 634), whereby the Division Bench distinguished the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court with reference to the specific statement made in the notification itself to the effect that the land plans and other details can be inspected by any person interested at the Office of the Competent Authority.

G.Dhanalakshmi vs The Special District Revenue Officer on 23 December, 2011

16.He referred to a judgment of the division bench of this court presided by A.P.Shah, C.J., (as he then was) in General Manager (Technical) and Project Director, National Highways Authority of India, Chennai Vs. Ms.Sridevi reported in (2007) 1 MLJ 129. In that case, this court after referring to the very same case in Barangore Jute Factory (cited supra) held in paragraph 10 as follows:
Madras High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - K Chandru - Full Document
1