Delay in Test Identification & Absence of Motive Fatal to Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man for Murder Tokre Koli or Dhor Koli – Both Stand on Same Legal Footing: Bombay High Court Slams Scrutiny Committee for Disregarding Pre-Constitutional Records Consent Is No Defence When Victim Is Under 16: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Granting Pre-Arrest Bail in Minor Rape Cases Would Send a Harmful Societal Signal: Delhi High Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail to Accused Citing POCSO’s Rigorous Standards Void Marriage No Shield Against Cruelty Charges: Karnataka High Court Affirms Section 498A Applies Even In Deceptive and Void Marital Relationships Consolidation Authorities Cannot Confer Ownership Or Alter Scheme Post Confirmation Without Due Process: Punjab & Haryana High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Jurisdiction Over Void Post-Scheme Orders Litigation Policy is Not Law, Can’t Enforce Guidelines Through Courts: Rajasthan High Court Refuses to Entertain Quo Warranto Against Additional Advocate General’s Appointment Police and Lawyers Are Two Limbs of Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Takes Suo Motu Cognizance in Police Misconduct Incident Sole Testimony, Forensic Gaps, and Withheld Witness: No Conviction Possible: Delhi High Court Affirms Acquittal in Murder Trial Remand Keeps the Dispute Alive – Not Arrears: Bombay High Court Holds SVLDRS Relief Must Be Computed Under Litigation Category Daughter’s Right Extinguished When Partition Effected Prior to 2005 Amendment: Madras High Court Trial Courts Cannot Direct Filing of Challan After Conviction — Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Directions Against DSP Veer Singh Rule 4 Creates Parity, Not a Parallel Pension Pipeline: Rajasthan High Court Denies Dual Pension to Ex-Chief Justice Serving as SHRC Chairperson Right to Be Heard Must Be Preserved Where Claim Has a Legal Basis: Orissa High Court Upholds Impleadment of Will Beneficiary in Partition Suit Long-Term Ad Hocism Is Exploitation, Not Employment: Orissa High Court Orders Regularization Of Junior Typist After 25 Years Of Service PIL Cannot Be a Tool for Personal Grievances: Supreme Court Upholds Municipal Body’s Power to Revise Property Tax After 16 Years Omission of Accused’s Name by Eyewitness in FIR is a Fatal Lacuna: Supreme Court Acquits Man Convicted of Murder Correction In Revenue Map Under Section 30 Isn’t A Tool To Shift Plot Location After 17 Years: Supreme Court Quashes High Court’s Remand Casteist Abuses Must Be In Public View: Supreme Court Quashes SC/ST Act Proceedings Where Alleged Insults Occurred Inside Complainant’s House Resignation Bars Pension, But Not Gratuity: Supreme Court Draws Sharp Line Between Voluntary Retirement and Resignation in DTC Employee Case

Supreme Court Quashes Government Orders Establishing Anti Land Grabbing Special Cells in Tamil Nadu

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


New Delhi, May 4, 2023: In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has upheld the decision of the Madras High Court to quash government orders that established Anti Land Grabbing Special Cells in Tamil Nadu. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justice M.R. Shah.

The government orders in question, G.O. (Ms.) No. 423 dated 28.07.2011 and G.O. (Ms.) No. 451 dated 11.08.2011, sanctioned the formation of 36 Anti Land Grabbing Special Cells in Tamil Nadu to tackle the rising issue of land grabbing in the state. However, the High Court had allowed writ petitions challenging these orders, citing the absence of guidelines and the potential for abuse of power.

The Supreme Court, in its judgment, concurred with the High Court's reasoning. It noted that the government orders did not provide clear guidelines for selecting land grabbing cases, leaving it to the discretion of the police officers attached to the Anti Land Grabbing Special Cells. This lack of clarity opened the door for arbitrary exercise of power and the possibility of abuse and misuse. The court emphasized that the absence of a specific definition of "land grabbing" further compounded the issue.

While upholding the High Court's decision to quash the government orders, the Supreme Court suggested that the state government enact appropriate legislation on the lines of the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982. The court emphasized the importance of defining "land grabbing" and "land grabber" and providing clear guidelines for identifying and addressing such cases.

The judgment also clarified that the dismissal of the appeals and the quashing of the government orders should not hinder the state government from enacting new legislation or better legislations to combat land grabbing effectively.

In a separate Criminal Appeal No. 275 of 2022, which involved the transfer of a land grabbing case from a Special Judicial Magistrate to a Judicial Magistrate-II, Erode, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, citing its concurrence with the High Court's decision.

May 4, 2023

GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU VS THAMARAISELVAM ETC. ETC.   

Latest Legal News