Kerala High Court Denies Relief To Petitioner Suppressing Facts, Orders Enquiry Into Allotment Of Govt Scheme Houses On Puramboke Land Candidate Missing Physical Test For Minor Illness Has No Enforceable Right To Rescheduling: Supreme Court Prolonged Incarceration And Parity Constitute Valid Grounds For Regular Bail: Supreme Court Accused In Cheque Bounce Cases Cannot File Evidence-In-Chief By Affidavit Under Section 145 NI Act: Orissa High Court Borrowers Have No Right To Personal Hearing Before Fraud Classification, But Full Forensic Audit Report Must Be Supplied: Supreme Court Pendency Of Matrimonial Dispute With General Allegations Not A Valid Ground To Deny Public Employment: Allahabad High Court Minimum Five Persons Mandatory To Prove 'Preparation For Dacoity' Under Section 399 IPC: Gujarat High Court Suit For Specific Performance Not Maintainable Without Prayer To Set Aside Termination Of Agreement: Madras High Court Trial Court Must Indicate Material Forming Basis Of Charge, Mechanical Framing Of Charges Impermissible: Madhya Pradesh High Court Voluntary Retirement Deemed Accepted If Positive Order Of Refusal Is Not Communicated Within Notice Period: Supreme Court Court Cannot Convict One Accused And Acquit Another On Same Evidence: Supreme Court Acquits Murder Convict Suspicion Cannot Replace Proof: Supreme Court Acquits Murder Convict Due To Unreliable Last-Seen Evidence And Principle Of Parity 138 NI Act | Accused Cannot Rebut Presumption Of Legally Enforceable Debt At Pre-Trial Stage In Cheque Bounce Cases: Supreme Court More Meritorious PWD Candidates From Reserved Categories Can Claim Unreserved PWD Posts In Open Competition: Supreme Court Meritorious Reserved Candidates Can Claim Unreserved Horizontal Vacancies Based On Merit: Supreme Court Employee Not Entitled To Gratuity Until Conclusion Of Both Departmental And Criminal Proceedings: Supreme Court Stamp Duty Recovery Against Legal Heirs Is Strictly Limited To The Extent Of Inherited Estate: Allahabad High Court Single Lathi Blow On Head During Sudden Altercation Amounts To Culpable Homicide Under Section 304 Part II IPC, Not Murder: Madhya Pradesh High Court Habeas Corpus Maintainable For Child Custody Against Father; Cannot Be Dismissed Merely Due To Alternate Remedy: Allahabad High Court "Plea Of Ignorance In Digital Era Inexcusable": Punjab & Haryana HC Imposes Rs 10K Cost On Accused For Hiding Prior Bail Dismissal Discrepancies In Name And Age On Monthly Pass Fail To Establish 'Bona Fide Passenger' Status In Railway Accident Claim: Delhi High Court "Last Seen" Theory A Weak Link If Time Gap Is Wide: Bombay High Court Acquits Man Sentenced To Life For Murder Failure To Conduct Pre-Anaesthetic Check-Up Prima Facie Amounts To Gross Medical Negligence Under Section 304A IPC: Kerala High Court Gujarat High Court Bans AI From Judicial Decision-Making, Lays Down Strict Policy for Court Use of Artificial Intelligence

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