Spl. Tahsildar, T.N. Magnesite Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Vaiyapuri & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal Nos. 3302-11 of 2000
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 147-156 of 1998)
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 147-156 of 1998)
Petitioner: Spl. Tahsildar, T.N. Magnesite Ltd. & Anr.
Respondent: Vaiyapuri & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal Nos. 3302-11 of 2000
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 147-156 of 1998)
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 147-156 of 1998)
Judges: S.P. BHARUCHA, RUMA PAL & SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Aug 05, 2000
Head Note:
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
T.N. Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1996 – Compensation – Disbursement – Interim orders by Single Bench – Appeal against – Interim orders by Division Bench – Pendency of SLP – High Court found to have directed to abide by the decision of Supreme Court – Appeals before Division Bench against final orders of Single Bench pending. Held that the appeals be expedited and amount over and above the original Award not permitted to be withdrawn.
(Para 2)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. The order under challenge was passed by a Division Bench of the High Court at Madras at an interim stage in Letters Patent Appeals against interim orders. When these Special Leave Peti-tions first came up before this Court, notice thereon was issued indicating that the matters might be disposed of at this stage by an order requiring the High Court to dispose of the appeals expeditiously and staying until then disbursement of amounts in excess of the original awards in the land acquisition proceed-ings. It now appears that the appeals that were filed against the interim orders of the learned Single Judge permitting disbursal, the Division Bench of the High Court has said, while disposing of the same. “So far as the right to withdraw the amount is con-cerned, the parties will have to abide by the decision of the Supreme Court”. The Division Bench appeals against the final orders of the learned Single Judge still remain to be decided. We are of the view that those appeals must be decided expeditiously, preferably within six months and, until then, the respondents should not be permitted to withdraw any amounts over and above those awarded under the original awards. The parties should be at liberty to move the High Court for a fixed date of hearing.
3. The civil appeals are disposed of in the above terms.
4. This order is passed on the merits of the cases as we see them at this prima facie stage and not on the basis of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1996.
5. No order as to costs.
1. Leave granted.
2. The order under challenge was passed by a Division Bench of the High Court at Madras at an interim stage in Letters Patent Appeals against interim orders. When these Special Leave Peti-tions first came up before this Court, notice thereon was issued indicating that the matters might be disposed of at this stage by an order requiring the High Court to dispose of the appeals expeditiously and staying until then disbursement of amounts in excess of the original awards in the land acquisition proceed-ings. It now appears that the appeals that were filed against the interim orders of the learned Single Judge permitting disbursal, the Division Bench of the High Court has said, while disposing of the same. “So far as the right to withdraw the amount is con-cerned, the parties will have to abide by the decision of the Supreme Court”. The Division Bench appeals against the final orders of the learned Single Judge still remain to be decided. We are of the view that those appeals must be decided expeditiously, preferably within six months and, until then, the respondents should not be permitted to withdraw any amounts over and above those awarded under the original awards. The parties should be at liberty to move the High Court for a fixed date of hearing.
3. The civil appeals are disposed of in the above terms.
4. This order is passed on the merits of the cases as we see them at this prima facie stage and not on the basis of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1996.
5. No order as to costs.
