Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: tamil nadu panchayats fourth amendment act 2005 Page 1 of about 4,070 results (0.218 seconds)

Jul 30 2007 (HC)

P. Subbulakshmi Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Secretary to Governmen ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (2007)6MLJ919

..... upto such date as the state government fix in this behalf under the tamil nadu panchayats act, 1994, hence, the contention of the ..... re-constitution of 561 special grade village panchayat as town panchayats; that in the tamil nadu municipal laws (amendment) ordinance (tamil nadu ordinance 4/2000) promulgated on 14.07.2006, later repealed by tamil nadu municipal laws (amendment act 2006) - tamil nadu act 18 of 2006, special provisions relating to village panchayats constituted as town panchayat (section 3cc) have been inserted in the act; that by virtue of the said amendment, the petitioner is entitled to hold office ..... to in sub-section (1).11. the state government, in order to reconstitute the 561 special village panchayat, including courtlam special village panchayat as town panchayat under the tamil nadu municipalities act decided to amend the tamil nadu act 31 of 1994 by introducing special provisions namely section 3(cc) which is extracted above. entry 5 of list ii empowers the state to legislate with respect to subject relating .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 05 2015 (HC)

Manokaran Vs. The Secretary to Government

Court : Chennai

..... chapter i-b, vide tamil nadu act 18 of 2006 by the tamil nadu district municipalities (amendment) act, 2006.13. it will be evident from the impugned notice dated 17.7.2009 that the executive officer of the town panchayat has ordered to remove the pig farm not on the ground that the fourth respondent-vijayan does not have any licence under the tamil nadu district municipalities act, but on the ground ..... health hazard, it is necessary to notice the relevant provisions of law, as discussed hereunder.11. the tamil nadu district municipalities act, 1920, was originally applicable to the municipalities. after the constitution of the town panchayats, chapter i-b was inserted by the tamil nadu district municipalities (amendment) act, 2006 (tamil nadu act 18 of 2006), and under section 3-aa, the state government has been empowered to issue notification, directing ..... that any of the provisions of the act and the rules made under the act or of any other enactment for the time being in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 21 2016 (HC)

Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam rep. by its Organisation Secretary R.S. Bhar ...

Court : Chennai

..... . w.p. no.28370 of 2016 has been filed praying this court to issue a writ of declaration declaring that the impugned amendment acts, viz., (i) tamil nadu municipal laws (2nd amendment) act, 2016 and (ii) the tamil nadu panchayat (2nd amendment) act, 2016, issued by the 1st respondent published in the official gazette as unconstitutional, motivated, unreasonable and ultra vires the constitution of ..... objections by the opposition party in the legislative assembly and through voice vote, the speaker stated the same to have been passed as acts. the acts were called the tamil nadu municipal laws (2nd amendment) act, 2016 and the tamil nadu panchayats (2nd amendment) act, 2016, wherein sections 48-aaaa, section 50-aaa, section 52-aaa, section 43-aaa were inserted in the chennai, madurai ..... (prayers: w.p. no.23411 of 2016 has been filed praying this court to issue a writ of declaration declaring the impugned amendment acts, viz., the tamil nadu municipal laws (second amendment) act, 2016 and the tamil nadu panchayats (second amendment) act, 2016, as unconstitutional, ultra vires the constitution of india and consequentially direct respondents 2, 4 and 5 to conduct the urban and rural ..... 1 to 3 to take necessary and appropriate steps for compulsory usage of electronic voting machines by the 4th respondent in the election for all posts of rural local bodies besides urban local bodies in the state of tamil nadu in the forthcoming local body election. w.p. no.23418 of 2016 has been filed praying .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 26 1996 (SC)

P. Kannadasan Etc, Etc. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others [Overruled]

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : 1996VIAD(SC)237; AIR1996SC2560; JT1996(7)SC16; 1996(5)SCALE596; (1996)5SCC670; [1996]Supp4SCR92

..... the madhya pradesh karadhan adhiniyam, 1982 (m.p. act 15 of 1982).8. the madhya pradesh upkar adhiniyam, 1982 (m.p. act 1 of 1982).9. the maharashtra zilla parishads and panchayat samitis (amendment and validation) act, 1981 (maharashtra act 46 of 1981).10. the orissa cess act, 1962 (orissa act ii of 1962).11. the tamil nadu panchayat act, 1958 (tamil nadu act xxxv of 1958).3. the statement of objects and ..... recovered on or before 4th day of april, 1991. it is significant to note that the impugned act does not contain any provision corresponding to any of the clauses in section 6 of the general clauses act.5. sri chandrasekharan, learned additional solicitor general, sri gulab c. gupta and sri k.n. shukla, appearing for the governments of tamil nadu, madhya pradesh and ..... . it means future collection as well. neither the preamble nor section 2 say that what is already collected alone is validated. this contention too accordingly fails. 29. the fourth contention of the learned counsel for appellants-petitioners is unsustainable in law and is misconceived. the parliament is competent to enact a law applicable only to a part of the ..... provisions contained therein relating to cesses or other taxes on minerals had been enacted by parliament and such provisions shall be deemed to have remained in force up to the 4th day of april, 1991.(2) notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any court, all actions taken, things done, rules made, notifications issued or purported to have been .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 04 2016 (HC)

Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, Rep. by its Organization Secretary, R.S. Bh ...

Court : Chennai

..... to five categories including criminal background at the time of filing nomination. when the notification has been issued in 2006, the state government by this time should have amended rule 26 of the tamil nadu panchayats (election) rules, 1995 by inserting a sub-rule translating the above said state election commission notification dated 01.09.2006. therefore, the state government is directed ..... section 261 - transitory provision of the tamil nadu panchayats act, 1994, to administer the local bodies by appointment of special officers till the elections are held, as the present terms of the present local bodies are to expire soon and the same cannot be extended beyond five years. (iv) the state government shall amend rule 26 of the tamil nadu panchayats (election) rules, 1995 by insertion of ..... respondent and quash the same, both on reservation and on rotation and consequently, direct the respondents to conduct the ensuing local body election in the state of tamil nadu, by strictly providing adequate reservation to the scheduled tribe, followed by necessary rotation of seats ..... panchayat union councils; notification in roc.no.12318/2016/c2 dated 18.09.2016 published vide gazette (extraordinary) no.220 dated 18.09.2016 on the file of the 3rd respondent and in r.d.(elections) c.no.6416/2016 dated 19.09.2016 published vide gazette (extraordinary) no.225 dated 20.09.2016 on the file of the fourth .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 16 2010 (HC)

S.M.Sivaswami. Vs. Nagammal, and ors.

Court : Chennai

..... already sold the property to shanmugam and santhamani [exs.b4 and b5] and that 4th defendant is only a subsequent purchaser.24. 2nd plaintiff-kasthuri is said to have married in 1990 and 3rd plaintiff-kavitha was not married. tamil nadu amendment act 1 of 1990 came into force w.e.f. 25.3.1989. as discussed ..... defendants 1, 2 and 4 claiming that she is the owner of half share in item no.1 [s.f.no.75] as per ex.a1-panchayat muchalika. the said suit filed by 1st plaintiff was dismissed on 30.06.1987. as is seen from ex.a9, 2nd defendant-jayamani filed o. ..... paid in the name of 1st defendant, the suit properties are the joint family properties of plaintiffs and 1st defendant. 1st plaintiff and 1st defendant executed panchayat muchalika [ex.a1] on 04.11.1987 treating the suit properties as joint family properties.3. further case of plaintiffs is that 1st plaintiff and 1st ..... .e. s.f.no.75 of sungakkaranpalayam village. ex.a1-panchayat muchalika recognises exs.b4 and b5-sale deeds [sale infavour shanmugam and santhamani] by referring to their property as boundaries:- ex.a1-panchayat muchalika strengthens the case of 4th defendant and does not in any way advance the plaintiffs case.21. ..... record a finding that item no.3 is the joint family property.20. plaintiffs have produced ex.a1-panchayat muchalika [04.11.1987] to state that properties were treated as joint family and in the panchayat item nos.1 and 2 of the suit properties were partitioned between 1st defendant and 1st plaintiff i .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 23 2006 (HC)

Jawaharlal Sharma Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.

Court : Jharkhand

Reported in : AIR2006Jhar135; [2006(3)JCR525(Jhr)]

..... ixa of the constitution, as introduced by the 'constitution (seventy-fourth amendment) act, 1992', including article 243q, is a mandate of constitution and all stales are bound to give effect to it by constituting municipality for a transitional area, smaller urban area and larger urban area, except villages/rural areas, where panchayats are to be constituted. therefore, the submission made by the ..... 2006 has also challenged the same notification dated 6th december, 2005 on the ground that the same is violative of the constitution of india and the provisions of 'panchayat (extension of scheduled areas) act, 1996' (hereinafter to be referred as 'pesa, 1996) as well as the provisions of 'jhakrhand panchayat raj act, 2001'.fourth writ petition i.e. w.p.(c) no. 517 ..... central legislature [refer supreme court's decision in the case of prabhakaran nair v. state of tamil nadu reported in : [1988]1scr1 ]. thus, the submission as, raised by the counsel for the petitioner on the basis of comparison, made vide amendment in two other acts, has no leg to stand and such submission is also rejected.(xx) so far as article ..... passed by patna high court and supreme court, are concerned, all such orders were passed prior to 'constitution (seventy-fourth amendment) act, 1992', which came into force on 1st june, 1993. so far as objection to the notification dated 6th december, 2005 is concerned, the said notification having been challenged by other petitioners i.e. jamshedpur citizens forum in w.p.(pil) .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 17 2012 (HC)

K. Duraisamy Vs. Rajendra Babu and Others

Court : Chennai

..... rules, 1997 and there is no serious change in the said rules and it was continued without any major change. even otherwise, the tamil nadu panchayat buildings rules as well as repealing of tamil nadu panchayat act, 1958 by the tamil nadu panchayat act of 1994 would relate back and would applied to the present case also. he would also cite a judgment of the hon'ble apex court reported in ..... questioned the manner in which the roads exist in the colony. the plaintiff, who is inimically disposed off against the first defendant, has vexatiously filed the suit and sought for amendment of the plaint belatedly, eight years after filing of the suit. even if the plaintiff has got any right, it is hopelessly barred by limitation. the purchasers of the house ..... of the duty to the innocent public and aiding the avaricious and unscrupulous sellers. it is incumbent on the part of the government to safeguard the public interest and the fourth defendant as the registering authority to comply with the guidelines issued by the authorities like town and country planning authority so as to safeguard the interest of the innocent prospective ..... appearing for the respondents 7 to 10 / defendants 6 and 7 would also submit in his argument that the town and country planning act has no application to the suit village and therefore, the relief sought for against the fourth defendant is not liable to be granted. 30. the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 7 to 10 / defendants 6 and 7 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 27 2015 (HC)

The Executive Officer, Ettayapuram Special Village Panchayat Vs. and A ...

Court : Chennai Madurai

..... first period was upto the year 1994, when the tamil nadu panchayats act, 1994 was enacted pursuant to the 73rd constitutional amendment, declaring the local bodies as independent units of local self-governments. the second period was from 1994 upto 2004 when the town panchayats were brought within the purview of the tamil nadu district municipalities act, 1920. the third period commences from 14.06.2004 ..... when 566 town panchayats were reclassified as village panchayats, as a consequence of which those town panchayats went out of the purview of the tamil nadu district municipalities act, 1920 and came to be governed by the tamil nadu panchayats act, 1994. the fourth period commences ..... ,j. in the judgment in w.p.no.40814 of 2002. we have already extracted the order of the honourable supreme court dated 18.10.2005. it merely shows that the panchayat can decide the application for grant of licence, uninfluenced by the judgment of the high court impugned in the special leave petition. what was impugned ..... should now deal with the manner in which the panchayat will exercise its right under section 267-a (1) of the tamil nadu district municipalities act, 1920. we will cross the bridge when it comes. it may be open to the panchayat to rely upon the very same resolution dated 24.10.2005 for the acquisition of rights, but they should proceed .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 27 2001 (HC)

M. Perumal Udayar and Etc. Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and anr.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR2001Mad471

..... 115 and 116 was bad. now, in fact the petitioner has not mentioned section 115 and 116 of the 1958 act, but has actually suggested that the levy is as per the tamil nadu panchayat. amendment act (act 27 of 1992) which introduced the changes in the rate of the local cess and local cess surcharge.4. however ..... , there can be no dispute that section 115 and 116 of the 1958 act were found to be vitiated on account of ..... 8-3-1993. the petitioners remitted the bid amount along with local cess and local cess surcharge. the local cess is in pursuance of the tamil nadu panchayat act and it is at the rate of 100% while the local cess surcharge is at the rate of 500%. the petitioners challenge the demand and ..... , 1991.'the government pleader then invites my attention to the schedule where the tamil nadu panchayat act, 1958 which was act 35 of 1958 is mentioned.5. learned government pleader therefore argues that this levy was ..... schedule to this act shall be and shall be deemed always to have been as valid as if the provisions contained therein relating to cesses or other taxes on minerals had been communicated by the parliament and such provisions shall be deemed to have remained in force upto the 4th day of april .....

Tag this Judgment!


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