High CourtsDivision Bench(2006) 06 MAD CK 0120

A. Mahalingam and Others vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Madras High Court · Decided on 23 June 2006

HON’BLE JUDGES
V. Dhanapalan, J · P. Sathasivam, J
CASE NUMBER
Writ Appeal No. 2945 of 2001

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 367 words

P. Sathasivam, J.

Aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge dated 19.11.2001 made in W.P. No. 21622 of 2001, the appellants 1 to 11 have filed the above appeal.

2.

All the 11 appellants-petitioners, aggrieved by the impugned acquisition proceedings initiated by the Housing and Urban Development Department, have filed W.P. No. 21622 of 2001. The learned single Judge, after finding that the said writ petition came to be filed after passing of the award and taking note of the decision of the Apex Court in 2001 (1) SC 146 The Municipal Council, Ahmed Nagar and Anr. v. Shah Hyder Boig and Ors., dismissed the writ petition.

3.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as the respondents.

4.

It is not in dispute that in the case on hand, after following the procedures, award was passed on 21.06.2001. However, the writ petitioners have filed the writ petition on 06.11.2001 i.e. well after passing of the award. It is also not in dispute that based on the series of the decisions of the Supreme Court, the Division Bench of this Court in Ramalingam and Others Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, . and S. Harshavardhan and Another Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, . held that the writ petition filed after passing of the award is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. In view of the authoritative decisions of this Court, based on the judgments of the Supreme Court, we are of the view that the decision taken by the learned single Judge cannot be faulted with. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.

5.

Considering the grievance expressed by the appellants, they are free to make a representation to the Government highlighting their status and income for exclusion of their lands. If any such representation is not already made, they are permitted to make such a representation within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If any such representation is made, the first respondent-Government is directed to consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law within a period of 12 weeks thereafter.