65th Day Of Lockdown

Maharashtra56948179181897 Tamil Nadu185459909136 Delhi152577264303 Gujarat152057549938 Rajasthan79474566178 Madhya Pradesh72613927313 Uttar Pradesh69913991182 West Bengal41921578289 Andhra Pradesh3245213359 Bihar300680014 Karnataka249379347 Punjab2106191840 Telangana2098132163 Jammu and Kashmir192185426 Odisha16608877 Haryana138183818 Kerala10885558 Assam832884 Uttarakhand493794 Jharkhand4621914 Chandigarh3641894 Chhatisgarh364830 Tripura2421650 Himachal Pradesh223634 Goa68370 Puducherry49170 Meghalaya20121 Nagaland1800 Manipur540 Arunachal Pradesh210 Mizoram110 Sikkim100
Nation Other News 30 Apr 2019 PIL in Madras HC to ...

PIL in Madras HC to abandon bus stand project

DECCAN CHRONICLE.
Published Apr 30, 2019, 1:51 am IST
Updated Apr 30, 2019, 1:51 am IST
In the year 2009, the assigned lands were resumed and the assignments to the beneficiaries were cancelled.
Madras high court
 Madras high court

Chennai: A Public Interest Litigation has been filed in the Madras high court to direct authorities to immediately abandon the bus stand project at Kilambakkam on the lands notified as surplus lands that were acquisitioned for a public purpose under the Land Reforms Act.

A division bench comprising Justices S.Manikumar and Subramonium Prasad before whom the PIL filed by advocate M.Narendran, came up for hearing, adjourned it to June 4.

 

According to petitioner, the lands belonging to Thiruvalargal Kasthuri Estate was notified as surplus lands and were acquisitioned for a public purpose by a G.O dated August 10, 1979 under section 18 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act. These lands having been declared as surplus lands were assigned in the year 1998 to several beneficiaries under the TN (Disposal of Surplus Lands) Rules. In the year 2009, the assigned lands were resumed and the assignments to the beneficiaries were cancelled stating that the lands were required for yet another alleged public purpose, he added.

 He said one of the beneficiaries, his relative as well as his client Karpagam, who was allotted one acre out of 95.74 acres of land had challenged the cancellation order and the order of resumption and cancellation was quashed and the assignment of land in her favour stood confirmed.

...




ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT