Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 21 (0.47 seconds)
For The Purpose Of Construction Of ... vs . on 29 September, 2006 cites

T.N.V. Kailasa Thevar vs V. Ramaswami Ayyangar And Ors. on 12 December, 1947

Form B was prepared in total violation of Rule 4(b). In fact Form (A) and Form (B) are just identical, copied from each other except deleting one or two words or sentences here and there. A reading of Form B discloses that notice has been issued to the reputed owner requiring him to lodge a statement in writing with his objection if any within 15 days from the date of service of the notice under Form B. This procedure is not contemplated either under the Act or under the Rules and the executive brain has introduced a new procedure through Form 'B' and it is quite confusing. When Rule 4(b) is totally silent on filing objection within 15 days, Form B has been prepared wrongly by the concerned. Since Form B is not in conformity with Rule 4 (a), the authority concerned is to modify the Form and publish the new Form expeditiously. It is relevant to point out that similar direction was issued by a Division Bench of this Court in I.L.R. (1996) 2 Madras 299 (GOVT. OF TAMIL NADU v. RAMASWAMI). We deem it necessary to point out with great stress that when, even in 1996, the Government had been asked by the Court to amend Form-B in consonance with Rule-4(b), serving the purpose adumbrated therein, it is but proper for the Government, being a welfare State, to have implemented the same so that matters of this nature would not have arisen at all. We hope and trust the Government will rectify the lacunae by bringing suitable amendment.
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Velusamy And Another vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By Its ... on 14 January, 2000

" 7. As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Pleader, the objections were submitted by the land owners beyond the period of 30 days, which is in contravention of the requirement of Sec. 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act. In such cases, the question is whether those objections are to be considered. The Division bench of this Court in the case of Velusamy and another v. The Government of Tamil Nadu by its Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Departments, Chennai and another, (2000) I C.T.C. 530, held that only if the objections have been received within 30 days such objections have to be forwarded to the requisitioning body and the remarks have to be called for. Otherwise, the requirement of the Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition rules need not be followed. The said rule is almost in Pari Materia with the rule 5(b) of the Pondicherry Land Acquisition Rules. Following the said principle, laid down by the Division Bench of this Court, we are of the view that the objections filed by the appellants herein beyond the period of 30 days need not be considered.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 5 - K G Balakrishnan - Full Document
1   2 3 Next