Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 106 (1.93 seconds)
Documents citing Tamil Nadu Housing Board vs Keeravani Ammal & Ors on 15 March, 2007

Kannammal vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 27 March, 2008

In Tamil Nadu Housing Board vs. Keeravani Ammal 2007(2)CTC 447, while dealing with the rights of the erstwhile owners under Section 48B of the Act for reconveyance, the Supreme Court has held that by applying the doctrine of public trust, the State cannot give back the property to the original owner for the value, less than the market value. It was held that even if the property is acquired for public purpose and after public purpose was achieved and there were still remaining lands available, it can be used for some other public purpose and even in cases where the remaining properties are available, the properties can be disposed of by the Government instead of selling the same to the erstwhile owner, but by way of public action for the better utilisation of public purposes envisaged under the Directive Principles of State Policy. The Supreme Court has further held as follows:
Madras High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - P Jyothimani - Full Document

C.Jayakumar @ C.Kumar vs The State Of Tamil Nadu Rep on 9 February, 2010

19. Before concluding, we may notice the judgment of this Court in Tamil Nadu Housing Board v. Keeravani Ammal (supra). The question considered in that case was whether the Division Bench of the High Court could direct release of the acquired land which had been transferred to the appellant-Board. While setting aside the impugned order, this Court observed:
Madras High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - K Chandru - Full Document

Haripriya Rayaningar vs The Secretary To Government on 11 November, 2010

19. Before concluding, we may notice the judgment of this Court in Tamil Nadu Housing Board v. Keeravani Ammal (2007 (9) SCC 255). The question considered in that case was whether the Division Bench of the High Court could direct release of the acquired land which had been transferred to the appellant-Board. While setting aside the impugned order, this Court observed:
Madras High Court Cites 124 - Cited by 0 - S Manikumar - Full Document

E.Arul Rakumar vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 3 August, 2023

In the above circumstances, the Writ Appeal is dismissed in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tamil Nadu Housing Board vs Keeravani Ammal reported in 2007(2) CTC 447, confirming the order dated 10.04.2017 in W.P.No.6684 of 2016 passed by the Writ Court. There will no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - D Krishnakumar - Full Document

E.Arul Rakumar vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 3 August, 2023

In the above circumstances, the Writ Appeal is dismissed in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tamil Nadu Housing Board vs Keeravani Ammal reported in 2007(2) CTC 447, confirming the order dated 10.04.2017 in W.P.No.6684 of 2016 passed by the Writ Court. There will no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - D Krishnakumar - Full Document

Rani vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 25 April, 2011

29. Before concluding, we may notice the judgment of this Court in Tamil Nadu Housing Board v. Keeravani Ammal (supra). The question considered in that case was whether the Division Bench of the High Court could direct release of the acquired land which had been transferred to the appellant-Board. While setting aside the impugned order, this Court observed: (SCC pp.261-62, paras 13-16) "13.It is clearly pleaded by the State and the Tamil Nadu Housing Board that the scheme had not been suspended or abandoned and that the lands acquired are very much needed for the implementation of the scheme and the steps in that regard have already been taken. In the light of this position, it is not open to the Court to assume that the project has been abandoned merely because another piece of land in the adjacent village had been released from acquisition in the light of orders of the Court. It could not be assumed that the whole of the project had been abandoned or has become unworkable. It depends upon the purpose for which the land is acquired. As we see it, we find no impediment in the lands in question being utilised for the purpose of putting up a multi-storied building containing small flats, intended as the public purpose when the acquisition was notified. Therefore, the High Court clearly erred in proceeding as if the scheme stood abandoned. This was an unwarranted assumption on the part of the Court, which has no foundation in the pleadings and the materials produced in the case. The Court should have at least insisted on production of materials to substantiate a claim of abandonment.
Madras High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - K Chandru - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next