Section 9 A&C Act Relief Available Until Award Is Actually Enforced, Even After It Becomes Enforceable: Telangana High Court Matrimonial Litigations Must Not Degenerate Into Contests Of Mutual Humiliation By Weaponising Private Images: Delhi High Court Unarmed Witnesses’ Inaction Against Armed Assailants Justified By Instinct Of Self-Preservation; Testimony Cannot Be Discarded: Allahabad High Court Ocular Evidence Outweighs Motive: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Based On Reliable Eyewitness Testimony Arrest Illegal If Written 'Grounds Of Arrest' Not Furnished To Accused; Communication Of Mere 'Reasons' Insufficient: Bombay High Court Absence Of Territorial Jurisdiction No Ground To Quash FIR At Threshold If Allegations Disclose Cognizable Offence: Calcutta High Court Proof Of Demand Is Sine Qua Non For PC Act Conviction; Voice Recordings Inadmissible Without Sec 65-B Certificate: Chhattisgarh HC Section 91 IEA | Disposition Of Immovable Property Cannot Be Proved By Oral Evidence If Written Document Not Produced: Delhi High Court NRC Legacy Data Extracts Inadmissible Without Section 65B Certificate; PAN Card & EPIC Not Proof Of Citizenship: Gauhati High Court Testimony Of Injured Witness Entitled To Great Weight; Minor Contradictions Due To Lapse Of Memory Cannot Discard Prosecution Case: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 164 CrPC Statement Recorded Without Procedural Safeguards Or 'Cooling-Off' Period Not A Valid Confession: Jharkhand High Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Investigation Is At A Nascent Stage If Custodial Interrogation Is Not Indispensable: Telangana High Court Actual Pay Drawn During Last 10 Months Must Be Basis For Pension Calculation, Regardless Of Notional Pay In Parent Bank: Punjab & Haryana High Court Kerala High Court Remands Teacher Seniority Dispute For Fresh Consideration To Verify If Senior Teacher Relinquished Promotion Claim Receipt Of DNA Report After Testimony Doesn't Automatically Confer Right To Recall Witness For Further Cross-Examination: Madhya Pradesh High Court Possession Of 'Bhang' Not An Offence Under NDPS Act, Specific Definition Excludes It: Jharkhand High Court Acquits Man Trial Court Cannot Reject Request For Handwriting Expert Merely Because Signatures Are On Photocopies: Punjab & Haryana High Court

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