High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Divorce Cannot Be Granted Merely on WhatsApp Chats: Bombay High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Decree Based on Unproved Electronic Evidence State Cannot Demand Settlement Amount Yet Withhold Legitimate Refund: Bombay High Court Strikes Down MVAT Settlement Order Surveyor’s Report Is Not Sacrosanct; Arbitral Award Ignoring Vital Evidence Is Perverse: Delhi High Court Sets Aside Insurance Arbitration Award When Victim Lives Under Exclusive Control Of Accused, Burden Shifts To Accused To Explain What Happened: Calcutta High Court Medical Evidence Clearly Indicating Suicide Cannot Be Overlooked, Prosecution Must Prove Homicidal Death Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Andhra Pradesh High Court 'Candidates Acted With Full Knowledge of Consequences': Kerala High Court Reverses Order for Refund of 10% Exit Fee in Medical PG Mop-Up Admissions Dispensing with Departmental Inquiry Without Material is Arbitrary: Supreme Court Sets Aside Dismissal of Delhi Police Constable Power Of Attorney Holder Authorized To Enforce Pre-Emption Right Can File Suit, Death Of Principal Does Not Bar Legal Heirs: Orissa High Court Government Servant Convicted In Criminal Case Can Be Dismissed Without Departmental Enquiry: Tripura High Court Upholds Teacher’s Dismissal RTI Cannot Be Used To Bypass Statutory Bar On Police Case Diaries: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Penalty Against Police Officers Externment Cannot Be Based On Police Report And Stale Cases: Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes District Magistrate’s Order Even Exonerated Accused Can Be Summoned During Trial: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Summoning Under Section 358 BNSS Benefit of Doubt Acquittal Not Equal to Honourable Acquittal: Supreme Court Upholds Rejection of Police Constable Candidate Madras High Court Allows NEET-Failed Student To Appear In CBSE Class XII Mathematics Exam After Last-Minute Subject Switch By Parents Salary of Parents Cannot Be Used to Deny OBC Non-Creamy Layer Status in Absence of Post Equivalence: Supreme Court Father Who Rapes Minor Daughter Cannot Seek Leniency: Bombay High Court Upholds Life Imprisonment Construction Of Toilet Is Bare Necessity For Proper Use Of Premises, Expression "Own Use" Not Confined To Landlord's Personal Physical Use: Calcutta High Court 353 IPC | Conviction Cannot Rest On Uncorroborated Testimony Of Sole Witness When Other Evidence Contradicts Occurrence: Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal 250 BNSS | 60-Day Discharge Period Is Procedural, Does Not Extinguish Accused's Right To Seek Discharge: Gujarat High Court Section 45 PMLA Cannot Become an Instrument of Endless Incarceration: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in ₹18 Crore Scholarship Scam Case Land Acquisition — Heirs Who Slept on Rights for 23 Years Cannot Claim Ignorance to Revive Dead Challenge: Karnataka High Court Institutional Hearing Is No Violation of Natural Justice: Kerala High Court Upholds BPCL’s Termination of Decades-Old Petroleum Dealership Witnesses Not Expected To Recount Past Incidents With Mathematical Precision, Minor Contradictions Don't Demolish Credibility: Orissa High Court If a Suit Is Ex Facie Barred by Limitation, the Court Has No Choice but to Dismiss It: P&H 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