Sign In
Notification
Font ResizerAa
  • Latest
    • Supreme Court
    • Madras High Court
    • Madurai Bench
  • Quick Recall
    • Arms Act
    • BNSS
    • BNS
    • BSA
    • Evidence
    • Drugs Act
    • Cr.P.C
    • IPC
    • N.I.Act
    • PMLA
    • NDPS
    • Corruption Laws
    • General
    • Passports Act
    • Pocso
    • MCOP
    • Writ
  • Acquittal
    • S.C
    • Madras High Court
  • 3 judge bench
  • Resources
    • Notes
      • Cr.P.C 1973
      • Crimes
    • Articles
      • P.G.Rajagopal (Judge Rtd)
      • Ad. Ramprakash Rajagopal
      • Ad. Karunanithi
      • Ad. Ravindran Raghunathan
      • Ad. James Raja
      • Ad. M.S.Parthiban
      • Ad. Rajavel
      • Ad. Azhar Basha
    • Digest
      • Monthly Digest
      • Weekly digest
      • Subject wise
    • Bare Acts
      • BSA 2023
      • BNS 2023
      • BNSS 2023
  • Must Read
  • Author’s note
  • E-Booklet
    • Legal words
  • About
    • Terms
    • Privacy policy
    • Cancellation & Refund Policy
    • Team
  • Civil
    • s. 91 cpc
  • My Bookmarks
Reading: Land grabbing: Transfer of Land grabbing cases ordered by Hon’ble High Court of Madras quashed
Share
Font ResizerAa
  • Latest
  • Acquittal
  • Digest
  • Resources
Search
  • Latest
    • Madras High Court
    • Madurai Bench
    • Supreme Court
  • Quick Recall
    • Evidence
    • Cr.P.C
    • IPC
    • N.I.Act
    • Pocso
    • PMLA
    • NDPS
    • Corruption Laws
    • General
    • Passports Act
  • Acquittal
    • S.C
    • Madras High Court
  • Digest
    • Monthly Digest
    • Weekly digest
  • Resources
    • Notes
    • Articles
  • 3 judge bench
  • Must have
  • Author’S Note
  • E-Booklet
  • Legal words
  • About
    • Terms
    • Privacy policy
    • Cancellation & Refund Policy
    • Team
  • Mobile APP
  • My Bookmarks

Get Notifications

Notification
Follow US
> Quick Recall> Corruption Laws> Land grabbing: Transfer of Land grabbing cases ordered by Hon’ble High Court of Madras quashed

Land grabbing: Transfer of Land grabbing cases ordered by Hon’ble High Court of Madras quashed

Head note: G.O of creating of Land Grabbing cell in Tamil Nadu - High court of Madras set aside G.O and directed to enact a legislation - Supreme Court stayed the High Court of Madras order - High Court of Madras on a Criminal Original Petition has transferred the case from Land Grabbing court to CCB court - High Court in further direction has directed transfer of 82 pending cases from Special courts to jurisdictional courts - Apex Court quashed the order of transferring cases from Special courts to jurisdictional courts.
Ramprakash Rajagopal October 23, 2023 9 Min Read
Share
Points
G.O of creating of Land Grabbing cell in Tamil NaduHigh court of Madras set aside G.O and directed to enact a legislationSupreme Court stayed the High Court of Madras orderHigh Court of Madras on a Criminal Original Petition has transferred the case from Land Grabbing court to CCB courtHigh Court in further direction has directed transfer of 82 pending cases from Special courts to jurisdictional courtsApex Court quashed the order of transferring cases from Special courts to jurisdictional courtsPartyMadras high court order

1. Leave granted.

2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned final judgment and orders dated 05.08.2019, 27.08.2019 and 29.08.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal O.P. No. 20889/2019, by which the learned Single Judge of the High Court has directed to transfer 864 cases in which the final reports have been filed before the concerned Special Courts for Land Grabbing Cases pending in various districts and has directed the concerned Special Courts before whom the final reports are filed to return back the final reports filed by the concerned investigating officers of the respective police stations in order to enable those final reports to be filed before the concerned jurisdictional Courts, the High Court of Judicature at Madras through the Registrar General has preferred the present appeals, being in a quandary with regard to the implementation of the impugned orders though passed on the judicial side.

3. The facts leading to the present appeals in a nutshell are as under:

G.O of creating of Land Grabbing cell in Tamil Nadu

That the State of Tamil Nadu issued G.O. (Ms) No. 423 dated 28.07.2011 creating 36 Anti Land Grabbing Special Cells in the State of Tamil Nadu with one cell each at the State Police Headquarters, 7 Commissionerates and 28 Districts except Karur, Tiruvannamalai and Nagappattinam Districts. That consequent upon G.O. (Ms) No. 423 dated 28.07.2011, Special Courts were constituted exclusively to deal with Land Grabbing Cases. That the aforesaid G.O. was the subject matter of controversy before the High Court.

High court of Madras set aside G.O and directed to enact a legislation

3.1 By a common judgment and order dated 10.02.2015 passed in Writ Petition No. 18872/2014 and other allied writ petitions, the High Court has set aside G.O (Ms) No. 423 dated 28.07.2011 and G.O.(Ms) No. 451, Home (Court III) Department dated 11.08.2011. While allowing those writ petitions, the High Court has also observed that the State Government is at liberty to enact any appropriate legislation on the lines of A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 or better legislations. The common judgment and order dated 10.02.2015 passed in Writ Petition No. 18872/2014 and other allied writ petitions is the subject matter before this Court by way of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 6050 6078 of 2015.

Supreme Court stayed the High Court of Madras order

3.2 That by order dated 27.02.2015, this Court, while issuing notice in the aforesaid special leave petitions, stayed the operation and implementation of the judgment and order dated 10.02.2015 passed by the High Court. Meaning thereby, pursuant to the said interim order, the aforesaid G.O. No. 423 dated 28.07.2011 and G.O. No. 451 dated 11.08.2011 are in operation and the jurisdiction of the Land Grabbing Cases is to be continued with the Special Cell/Special Courts.

High Court of Madras on a Criminal Original Petition has transferred the case from Land Grabbing court to CCB court

3.3 That, during the pendency of the aforesaid special leave petitions, one, S. Natarajan, original complainant in Crime No. 434/2015 pending on the file of the Special Court for Land Grabbing Cases No. II, Chennai, filed Criminal O.P. No. 20889/2019 before the High Court, seeking transfer of the said case from the Special Court to the Court of CCB and CBCID, Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. By order dated 05.08.2019, the learned Single Judge of the High Court has allowed/disposed of the said petition and has directed the concerned police officials to take back the final report from the Special Court for Land Grabbing Cases No. II, Chennai and to file the same before the CCB and CBCID, Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.

High Court in further direction has directed transfer of 82 pending cases from Special courts to jurisdictional courts

3.4 That thereafter, on ‘mentioning’ made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor in the disposed of matter, being the aforesaid Criminal O.P. No. 20889/2019, disposed of vide order dated 05.08.2019, a further order dated 27.08.2019 came to be passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court directing transfer of other 82 cases pending on the files of the Special Courts to the jurisdictional Courts. That thereafter, again on a ‘special mentioning’ made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor in the disposed of matter being Criminal O.P. No. 20889/2019, the learned Single Judge by order dated 29.08.2019 has directed transfer of 782 cases pending in the Special Courts to the jurisdictional Courts. Orders dated 05.08.2019, 27.08.2019 and 29.08.2019 are the subject matter of the present appeals.

Apex Court quashed the order of transferring cases from Special courts to jurisdictional courts

5. Even otherwise on merits also, orders dated 05.08.2019, 27.08.2019 and 29.08.2019 transferring the cases/final reports from the concerned Special Courts for Land Grabbing Cases pending in different districts to the concerned jurisdictional Magistrates in different districts of the State can be said to be in the teeth of the interim order passed by this Court dated 27.02.2015 in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 6050 6078/2015. Once the judgment and order passed by the High Court quashing and setting aside G.O. No. 423 dated 28.07.2011 and G.O. No. 451 dated 11.08.2011 came to be stayed by this Court, the jurisdiction of the concerned Special Courts to deal with the Land Grabbing Cases continues. From the impugned orders, it appears that the learned Single Judge of the High Court was aware of the pending proceedings before this Court and despite that the impugned orders are passed transferring the final reports/cases from the concerned Special Courts to the jurisdictional Magistrates. Under the circumstances also, impugned orders passed by the High Court dated 05.08.2019, 27.08.2019 & 29.08.2019 passed in Criminal O.P. No. 20889/2019 are unsustainable and deserve to be quashed and set aside.

6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the present appeals are allowed. Impugned judgment and orders dated 05.08.2019, 6 27.08.2019 & 29.08.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal O.P. No. 20889/2019 directing transfer of approximately 864 cases from the concerned Special Courts to the concerned jurisdictional Magistrates are hereby quashed and set aside. However, the same shall be subject to the final outcome and the decision of this Court in the pending proceedings being Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 6050-6078 of 2015. All these appeals are accordingly allowed.

Party

Registrar General, High Court of Judicature at Madras Versus The State, represented by the Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Chennai & Another – CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 272-274 OF 2022 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Criminal) Nos. 1752-1754 of 2022 @ D.No. 2419/2022 – FEBRUARY 23, 2022.

https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2022/2419/2419_2022_12_18_33662_Order_23-Feb-2022.pdf

Registrar General, High court of judicature at madras vs. The state – 2419_2022_12_18_33662_Order_23-Feb-2022

Madras high court order

S.Natarajan Vs. State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Team – XVI-A, (Cr.No.434/2015) Vepery, Chennai-600 007. … Petitioner … Respondent – Crl.O.P.No.20889 of 2019 – DATED: 05.08.2019 CORAM THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/index.php/casestatus/viewpdf/483101

S.Natarajan vs. state

Subject Study

  • Must have judgment for defense counsels: Prosecution cannot prove a fact during trial through witness which was not stated to the police during investigation
  • CCTV: Police authorities have full powers to inspect spa, massage centers
  • Murder intention confirmed: If the accused has no intention, then he could not have gone into his house and brought billhook to assault the accused
  • TIP: Dock identification for the first time in the absence of proper identification parade is doubtful
  • Section 294b IPC: Absence of words involve arousing sexual thoughts or feelings or words cannot attract offence
  • Conviction Sudden provocation
  • Maintenance: Since the petitioner met with an accident the delay in compliance order is condoned
  • Section 173(2) Cr.P.C: The opinion in the final report would not have a bearing on the claim petition

Further Study

Section 482 CrPC: Only High Court has the power to direct to run sentences in two different cases concurrently

Section 138 NI Act: Accused completely rebutted in the cheque case

AADHAAR Act: Furnishing of details to ascertain whether AADHAAR is genuine or not does in the interest of national security is permitted

Madras High court direction for rama nama bhajans

Surrender petition: Accused should surrender only before the Jurisdictional Magistrate

TAGGED:land grabbing cellmadras high courtspecial courts land grabbingtransfer of land grabbing cases
Previous Article NDPS Act: Seized substance in the presence of gazetted officer not certified by the magistrate has no evidentiary value
Next Article Whether bail has to cancel if witness(es) turned hostile?
Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Popular Study

section 138

Provisions of sec 138 N.I Act attracts only when it has been issued to discharge a legally enforceable debt

Reshma Azath July 31, 2025
Acquittal: No last seen alive accused and deceased together before the commission of offence hence circumstance not proved
If animus between the accused and complainant is not proved presumption under Section 20 of PCAct would not arise against accused
Complaint filed under section 138 N.I Act is maintainable even Partnership Firm is not named as accused
Evolution of FIR Registration with Comparative analysis of CrPC Sections 154 & 156(3) and BNSS sections 173 & 175(3)

Related Study

A FORENSIC GUIDE FOR CRIME INVESTIGATORS STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES
February 3, 2023
Prosecution cannot file final report without complete investigation to deprive arrest of accused and default bail under section 167(2) Cr.P.C
April 28, 2023
Section 11 Evidence Act: Appreciation of plea of alibi
November 11, 2023
Cr.P.C., 1973. Notes no.7: Information to the police and their powers to investigate (Chapter XII – Part.1)
January 8, 2024
Sudalaimani vs state – 2014-2-LW(Crl.) 372
January 5, 2025

About

Section1.in is all about the legal updates in Criminal and Corporate Laws. This website also gives opportunity to publish your (readers/users) articles subject to the condition of being edited (only if necessary) by the team of Advocates. Kindly send your articles to paperpageindia@gmail.com or WhatsApp to +919361570190.
  • Quick Links
  • Team
  • Terms
  • Cancellation Policy
  • Privacy Policy
  • My Bookmarks
  • Founder

section1.in is powered by Paperpage.             A product of © Paperpage Internet Services. All Rights Reserved. 

Subscribe Newsletter for free

Subscribe to our newsletter to get judgments instantly!

Check your inbox or spam folder to confirm your subscription.

ஓர்ந்துகண் ணோடாது இறைபுரிந்து யார்மாட்டும் தேர்ந்துசெய் வஃதே முறை [541].

_திருவள்ளுவர்
Welcome Back!

Sign in to your account

Username or Email Address
Password

Lost your password?