Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Madras High Court
  4. /
  5. 2017
  6. /
  7. January

Malini @ Dhanalakshmi vs Union Territory Of Puducherry

Madras High Court|05 April, 2017

JUDGMENT / ORDER

With the grievance that the compensation has not been paid, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
2.The learned Government Advocate (Puducherry) would submit that the matter has been referred to the jurisdictional Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
3.In such view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the said Court. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
05.04.2017 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order cse To
1.Union Territory of Puducherry, Rep. by its Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Puducherry.
2.The Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition Officer (North), New Saram, Puducherry.
M.M.SUNDRESH,J.
cse W.P.No.7948 of 2017 and W.M.P.No.8708 of 2017 05.04.2017
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Malini @ Dhanalakshmi vs Union Territory Of Puducherry

Court

Madras High Court

JudgmentDate
05 April, 2017