Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.27 seconds)Section 6 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Section 11 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Section 3 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Tamil Nadu Housing Board vs Sembanna Gounder on 18 September, 2006
In the above context, we are of the view that the Housing Board being a beneficiary under
12/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1254 to 1258 of 2010
the acquisition proceedings is not entitled to agitate the same by filing an appeal in view
of the orders of the Division Bench in Tamil Nadu Housing Board vs. Sembanna
Gounder and others reported in 2006 (4) CTC 803. For better appreciation, relevant
portion thereof is extracted below:
Section 16 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Section 4 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
State Of Maharashtra vs Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak & Anr on 28 July, 1982
In this regard, it is apposite
to refer to a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Maharashtra vs. Ramdas
Shrinivas Nayak and Another reported in (1982) 2 SCC 463, wherein it is held as thus:
National Insurance Special Voluntary ... vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. on 26 October, 2018
8. So the Judges' record is conclusive. Neither lawyer nor litigant may claim to contradict
it, except before the Judge himself, but nowhere else.”
17/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1254 to 1258 of 2010
While such being the tenet of law, the filing of the appeal by the Housing Board sans
resorting to the alternative remedy by filing review application before the very same
Judge who passed the impugned order, is bereft of any merit. Besides, the aforesaid
principle has been followed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National
Insurance Special Voluntary Retired/Retired Employees Association and Another vs.
United India Insurance Company Limited and Another reported in (2018) 18 SCC 186
and the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Union Territory of Puducherry and
Others vs. N.Rajalakshmi and Others reported in 2022 SCC OnLine Mad 3407.
Tamil Nadu Housing Board & Anr vs P. Parthasarathi on 4 October, 1996
Under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act the “Appropriate Government” - as
defined under Section 3(ee) of the Act alone can proceed to initiate the proceedings
for acquiring the lands exercising their power of eminent domain. The Housing
Board has no interest, what so ever, at any stage of the proceedings initiated under
the Land Acquisition Act, in the land intended to be acquired till such time
possession of the acquired land is handed over to the Housing Board. Since
admittedly in this case the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act
had come to be quashed at the instance of the land owners, we have no doubt at all
that it is only the Government and the Government alone, being the appropriate
Government under the Land Acquisition Act, can challenge the order of the learned
Single Judge impugned in the Writ Petition. We are very clear in our mind that the
Housing Board cannot challenge the order of the learned Single Judge, having
regard to the stage at which the Writ Petition came to be allowed. Accordingly the
objection regarding maintainability raised by learned Senior Counsel appearing for
respondents 2 to 4 is sustained and the Appeal stands dismissed as not being
maintainable at the hands of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. Since we have
dismissed the Writ Appeal only on the maintainability issue, we are not expressing
any opinion on the other points involved. No costs.”
In the case of Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Housing Board vs. R.Parthasarathi
13/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1254 to 1258 of 2010
and Others reported in (2020) 3 Mad LJ 769, the Division Bench of this Court has held
as follows:
1