Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 93 (0.54 seconds)
Documents citing R. Pari vs The Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar ... on 25 August, 2006

Unknown vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 8 July, 2022

7. We are also able to see that the balance extent of lands left out in survey Nos.57/2, 57/3A, 57/3B and 57/4 which are in the possession of the appellants are 3.28.33 ares, therefore, we are unable to apply the ratio laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the decision in R.Pari vs. The Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare, Pasumpon Muthuramalinga Thevar District and another reported in (2007) 2 MLJ 706 to hold that the appellants are prejudiced in this case. Secondly, the learned Single Judge also in his order has specifically answered the grievance of the appellants holding that even though the writ petitioners claim that they do not possess any land except the lands which were sought to be acquired, the Special Tahsildar (ADW), Kallakurichi, Villupuram District has stated that the appellants own vast extent of lands and also given 7/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.666 of 2019 particulars of the lands possessed by each of the appellants which are reproduced below :
Madras High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - T Raja - Full Document

Unknown vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 8 July, 2022

7. We are also able to see that the balance extent of lands left out in survey Nos.57/2, 57/3A, 57/3B and 57/4 which are in the possession of the appellants are 3.28.33 ares, therefore, we are unable to apply the ratio laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the decision in R.Pari vs. The Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare, Pasumpon Muthuramalinga Thevar District and another reported in (2007) 2 MLJ 706 to hold that the appellants are prejudiced in this case. Secondly, the learned Single Judge also in his order has specifically answered the grievance of the appellants holding that even though the writ petitioners claim that they do not possess any land except the lands which were sought to be acquired, the Special Tahsildar (ADW), Kallakurichi, Villupuram District has stated that the appellants own vast extent of lands and also given particulars of the lands possessed by each of the appellants which are 7/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.666 of 2019 reproduced below :
Madras High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - T Raja - Full Document

Rangasamy vs The District Collector on 14 December, 2009

In R. Pari v. Special Tahsildar, Adi-Dravidar Welfare reported in (2006) 4 CTC 609, the Full Bench held that, "The owner should be furnished with a copy of the report/ recommendation of the authorised officer. Thereafter, he should be given two weeks time to make further representation, if any, before the District Collector. It is not necessary for the District Collector to give a further personal hearing or make any further enquiry. However, mere non-furnishing of the report would not have the ipso facto effect of vitiating the proceedings and the question of prejudice to the land owner is required to be considered in each case depending upon the facts and circumstances. The District Collector is expected to reflect the reasons, but merely because the communication to the land owner does not contain the reasons, the decision of the Collector is not ipso facto vitiated and it would always open to the concerned authority to prove before the Court, if such action of the Collector is challenged, that there has been application of mind and the reasons are available in the relevant records relating to such acquisition. The necessity to record the reasons is applicable where the Collector himself makes the enquiry and also where the Collector takes an appropriate decision on the basis of the report/recommendation made by the authorised officer."
Madras High Court Cites 94 - Cited by 3 - S Manikumar - Full Document

T.Jayanandan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 7 February, 2008

10. Learned counsel placed reliance on the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of R.Pari v. The Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare, Devakottai, 2006(4) CTC 609 to contend that the appellant should be given second opportunity to put forth his objections to the correctness of over ruling his objections by the Land Acquisition Officer, before the District Collector. Though such a ground has not been taken by the appellant before the learned single Judge, we heard him on the issue.
Madras High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - K R Pandian - Full Document

V.Ravikumar vs The District Collector on 3 September, 2014

10. Learned counsel placed reliance on the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of R.Pari v. The Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare, Devakottai, 2006(4) CTC 609 to contend that the appellant should be given second opportunity to put forth his objections to the correctness of over ruling his objections by the Land Acquisition Officer, before the District Collector. Though such a ground has not been taken by the appellant before the learned single Judge, we heard him on the issue.
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - V Dhanapalan - Full Document

Rajangam vs The District Collector on 18 February, 2013

21. The learned counsel is also right in contending that this acquisition deserves to be quashed for want of supply of copies of the recommendation by Tahsildar for allowing the petitioner to file his objections for consideration by the District Collector. The impugned Notification also suffers from vice of non-compliance of principles of natural justice, as held by the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in the case R. Pari vs The Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare, Devakottai (supra).
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - V K Sharma - Full Document

V.Kanagavalli Viswanathan vs The Chief Secretary To Government on 20 July, 2010

In fact, the learned Additional Advocate General fairly brought to my notice the full Bench judgment of this Court in R.PARI VS. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, ADI-DRAVIDAR WELFARE, DEVAKKOTTAI reported in 2006 (4) CTC 609. According to the learned Additional Advocate General, the judgment is not applicable to the facts of this case and I am not in agreement with the submissions made by the learned Additional Advocate General. The principles enunciated therein squarely applies to the facts and circumstances of this case. Whenever certain material is relied on by the authorities against a person, the aggrieved person shall be furnished with those materials, so as to make his views on those materials.
Madras High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 6 - D Hariparanthaman - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next