Skip to content


S.M.S.V. Nagaraja Nadar Vs. the Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, (Harijan Welfare), Vusalampatti, Madurai - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberW.P. No. 1394 of 1979
Judge
Reported inAIR1982Mad448; (1982)2MLJ111
ActsLand Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 9(1) and 10
AppellantS.M.S.V. Nagaraja Nadar
RespondentThe Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, (Harijan Welfare), Vusalampatti, Madurai
Appellant AdvocateN. Inbarajan, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateA. Sivaji, Adv. for Govt. Pleader
Excerpt:
- .....states that the enquiry under s. 9 of the act was held on 28th march, 1979, which was a public holiday, namely, telugu new year's day, and on that account, the enquiry must be held to be incompetent and there should be a direction for fresh enquiry. the learned counsel frankly admitted that it is not possible to spell out, either from the provisions of the act or from the rules framed there under, that an enquiry under section 9 of the act should not be held on a public holiday. furthermore, it is not the case of the petitioner that by the enquiry being held on a public holiday, he was put to any prejudice. no such inhibition could be spelt out from the provisions of the act, when a reading of the same does not express it. there is no scope for implying such inhibition into.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. The prayer in the writ petition is for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to hold an enquiry under Ss. 9(1), and 10, Land Acquisition Act, I of 1894, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The petitioner is not challenging the proceedings which have culminated in the making of a declaration under S. 6 of the Act. Mr. N. Inbarajan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, states that the enquiry under S. 9 of the Act was held on 28th March, 1979, which was a public holiday, namely, Telugu New Year's day, and on that account, the enquiry must be held to be incompetent and there should be a direction for fresh enquiry. The learned counsel frankly admitted that it is not possible to spell out, either from the provisions of the Act or from the Rules framed there under, that an enquiry under Section 9 of the Act should not be held on a public holiday. Furthermore, it is not the case of the petitioner that by the enquiry being held on a public holiday, he was put to any prejudice. No such inhibition could be spelt out from the provisions of the Act, when a reading of the same does not express it. There is no scope for implying such inhibition into the provisions of the Act. No other point has been taken in the amdavit filed in support of this petition. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.

2. Petition dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //