Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.28 seconds)
Dr.T.Azhizuddin (Died) vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 22 July, 2009 cites

The Tamil Nadu Consumers Cooperative vs T.A.Jayalakshmi on 21 October, 2008

In fact, in an almost identical case, a Division Bench of this Court in Tamil Nadu Consumers Co-operative Federation Ltd. vs. T.A.Jayalakshmi [(2009) 2 MLJ 53] considered the earlier proceedings questioning the final statement under Section 10(1) as well as the notifications thereafter. The challenge was unsuccessful upto the Supreme Court. It was contended before the Division Bench that in the earlier proceedings, the question regarding compliance of Section 9(5) was neither raised nor argued and therefore, principle of constructive res judicata would not apply. In that case also, there was an earlier finding that "... the formalities prescribed under Sections 9 to 11 of the Act, have been meticulously observed and after acquiring the land and taking over possession of the same, a formal order also appears to have been made...". Therefore, the Division Bench rejected the contention that the earlier findings would not amount to res judicata and observed that "if such a challenge is allowed, the possibility of further litigation will be always hanging over the State Government and no matter could reach its finality".
Madras High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 1 - D Murugesan - Full Document

Shakuntla Devi vs Kamla & Ors on 11 April, 2005

9. It was repeatedly submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that when actual possession is not taken and mere exchange of letters between two officers of the Revenue Department would not amount to taking of possession. As regards the contention that the earlier finding regarding possession was not a relevant factor for deciding the issue of compensation since as far as Section 12 is concerned, Section 11(3) alone is a criteria. We cannot accept the same, since the question of possession as per law, is the next step in the proceedings of Section 11(3). Further, this was a fact that was very relevant as far as the appellant's interest was concerned, when the writ appeal came to be heard. When a finding has been given regarding actual possession in an earlier proceedings, which was confirmed by the Division Bench, to say that we are not bound by it would not be proper. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Shakuntla Devi v. Kamla & Others [(2005) 5 SCC 390], where, when the declaratory decree delivered without jurisdiction or contrary to existing law came up for reconsideration, the Supreme Court held that cannot operate as res judicata in a subsequent case between the same parties, unless it is protected by a special enactment. The reason was that a declaratory decree simpliciter would not attain finality if it has to be used for obtaining any future decree like possession. This does not apply to the present case. Here, it is a finding of fact and there is a categoric finding that possession was actually taken in 1985 and it was accepted. We find that the manner in which possession has been taken is by handing over of the land delivery receipt. We also find that the area had been checked and actually excess land had been demarcated. Thereafter, in the revenue records as far as Survey No.387/1A, it stands in the name of the Government "muR epyk;;". We also find that on 11.11.1998, the appellant sent a registered letter to the Government of Tamil Nadu, where he had stated that "so far as we know that the Government has not dealt with the land taken in any manner as provided under the Act". When we put this to the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, he submitted that the word "taken" in this letter as well as in the later letter dated 15.06.1999, where the words used "excess land has not been dealt with in any manner by the State Government" should be understood as the excess land that vested with the Government, has not been dealt with by the Government and similarly "taken" should be understood as having vested. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that this Court must understand that the appellant himself addressed the letter and he was not well versed in legal jargon. It is difficult to accept this. If the appellant had been in possession of the said land, he would have said that "we are in possession and nothing has been done on the land" and words to that effect. But, the very fact that he used the words, "so far as we know that the Government has not dealt with the land taken", we are strengthened in our view that possession was indeed taken in 1985 and all that he was seeking was either compensation or perhaps exchange of land. Even with regard to the request for exchange of land, it cannot be understood to mean that he still retained the land in his possession and were seeking exchange only in so far as it had vested with the Government.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 68 - Full Document
1