Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 3913 (MAD)

G. Kandaiyan v. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Secretary to the Government & Others

2010-09-02

M.JAICHANDREN

body2010
Judgment :- Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsels appearing for the respondents. 2. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, Mr.R.Murali, the learned Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.P.Srinivas, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the fourth respondent, have submitted that the land acquisition proceedings, in respect of the land in Survey No.59/1, in Masinaickkenpatty Village, Salem District, had been dropped, as per G.O.(Misc) No.153, Adidravidar and Tribal Welfare Department (LA2) Department, dated 28.08.2001, due to the fact that Hi-tension electricity lines were passing through the said lands. 3. In such circumstances, the petitioner is permitted to make a representation to the second respondent, if he is so advised, with regard to allotment of alternate house sites to the petitioner and the other members of the Adidravidar community of Masinaickkenpatty Village, Salem District. 4. On the petitioner making such representation, it is for the second respondent to consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon. The writ petition is disposed of, with the above observations. No costs.