The High Court dismissed the writ appeal as infructuous. Counsel for the appellant reported lack of instructions, and the Court noted the appeal had been pending since 2018, rendering it useless to proceed.
The Writ Appeal is dismissed as infructuous. No costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.A.No.2278 of 2005
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 21.09.2023
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice D.Krishnakumar
&
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice P.B.Balaji
W.A.No.2278 of 2005
T.S.Krishnamurthy ...Appellant
Vs.
and Special Collector, (Revenue Court)
Kumbakkonam.
rep. by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Fort. St. George, Chennai – 9.
Respondents
dated 27.07.2016 made in W.A.No.2278 of 2005.
1/4
W.A.No.2278 of 2005
Writ Appeal filed under clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the order passed in W.P.No.9483 of 1995, dated 08.08.2005.
For Appellants : Mr.T.R.Rajaraman For Respondents 1 and 2 : Mrs.R.L.Karthika Government Advocate Respondents 3 to 6 : Deleted
Judgement
( Judgement of the Court was delivered by D.Krishnakumar,J., )
When the Writ Appeal is taken up for hearing today, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he has not received any instructions from the appellant and as such, he is not able to proceed with the case, and therefore, prayed for appropriate orders.
2. Since it is reported by the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner that no instructions has been received from his client (appellant), and taking into consideration of the fact that the Appeal has not been pursued since 2018, as could be seen from the docket orders of this Appeal, it could be deduced that the appellant is not interested to
2/4
W.A.No.2278 of 2005
prosecute the Appeal. Further, the challenge made herein is with regard the Constitutional Validity of the Schedule appended to the Tamil Nadu Occupants of Kudiyiruppu (Conferment of Ownership) Act, 1971,and by efflux of time, law would have taken its course, we are of the view that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the matter pending for more than a decade. Accordingly, we dismiss this Writ Appeal as infructuous. No costs.
(D.K.K.J.) & (P.B.B.J.,) 21.09.2023
sd
Index : yes/no Neutral Citation ;yes/no
To
3/4
W.A.No.2278 of 2005
D.Krishnakumar,J. & P.B.Balaji, J., sd
W.A.No.2278 of 2005
21.09.2023
4/4
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to maintain the writ appeal challenging the constitutional validity of a Schedule in the Tamil Nadu Occupants of Kudiyiruppu Act due to prolonged inactivity.
T.S.Krishnamurthy
The Authorized Officer and Special Collector, (Revenue Court) Kumbakonam
The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Fort. St. George, Chennai
D.Krishnakumar
P.B.Balaji
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
