About Me

My photo
Lawyer Practising at Supreme Court of India. Court Experience: Criminal, Civil & PIL (related to Property, Tax, Custom & Duties, MVAC, insurance, I.P.R., Copyrights & Trademarks, Partnerships, Labour Disputes, etc.) Socio-Legal: Child Rights, Mid Day Meal Programme, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyaan, Women Rights, Against Female Foeticide, P.R.Is, Bonded Labour, Child labour, Child marriage, Domestic violence, Legal Literacy, HIV/AIDS, etc. Worked for Legal Aid/Advise/Awareness/Training/Empowerment/Interventions/Training & Sensitisation.

Contact Me

+91 9971049936, +91 9312079439
Email: adv.kamal.kr.pandey@gmail.com

Monday, April 7, 2008

HC dismisses petition against land allotment to trust

Chennai, April 05: Madras High Court today dismissed a writ petition, challenging the allotment of land by the Tamil Nadu Government to 'Nethrodaya Trust', taking care of the visually impaired.
Dismissing the petition, Mr Justice N Paul Vasanthakumar observed that the petitioner did not have any valid grounds to challenge or to place on record the suitability of land for assignment.
'Nethrodaya Trust', functioning out of a rented premises at Mogappair, near here, had requested the Government to allocate 0.14 hectares of Government poromboke land at Nolambur village, in Tiruvallur district for constructing a home for the blind. The Government had allotted 0.11 hectares through a G O on November 20, 2006, on lease basis for 30 years, subject to the condition that the Trust paid a nominal lease rent of Rs 5,000 per annum.
Aggrieved by the allotment, Nolambur village panchayat member and Secretary of the Mugappair West Gardens Residents Welfare Association N M Immanuvel filed the writ petition, seeking for a direction to quash the GO.
The Judge said the petitioner, being an elected member of the local body, instead of supporting the policies of the Government for a noble cause, had chosen to file the petition, which was against public interest. Moreover, objections, if any, for the land allotment were invited by the officials by way of A1 notice and thereafter a personal inquiry was conducted by the Tahsildar concerned. The petitioner had not responded then, he noted.
The petitioner, who claimed himself to be a sitting ward member, had no locus standi or moral right to challenge the validity of a GO as there was no protest from the public, except the petitioner, the Judge said and dismissed the petition. - Bureau Report
Published: Sunday, April 06, 2008
www.chennaionline.com

No comments:

Post a Comment

Comment