Dismissed

U.Jaya Lakshmi, v. State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC21 Dec 2016WP/43800/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed two writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which sought writs of Mandamus to restrain respondents from interfering with property possession. Both petitions were dismissed because they had been withdrawn by the petitioners, leading to the closure of connected miscellaneous petitions.

What did the court decide?

The petitions were dismissed as withdrawn. No costs were awarded.

U.Jaya Lakshmi, Vs State of Tamil Nadu — Property and Title | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 21.12.2016

¶3

CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR
W.P.Nos.43800 and 43801 of 2016
U.Jaya Lakshmi .. Petitioner
in WP.43800/2016
A.Noorinisa .. Petitioner
in WP.43801/2016
Vs.
1. The State of Tamil Nadu
rep. by its Secretary
Highways Department
Fort St. George
Chennai – 600 009.
2. The District Collector
Chennai District
Chennai.
3. The Assistant Divisional Engineer
Chennai City Roads (H) C & M Division
No.2/193, Anna Salai, Little Mount
Chennai – 600 015.
4. The Tahsildar
Egmore-Nungambakkam Taluk
Spur Tank Road, Chetpet
Chennai – 600 031.
5. Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority
rep. by its Member Secretary
No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. .. Respondents

¶4

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶5

PRAYER in W.P.No.43800 of 2016: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents from interfering with peaceful possession of the property situated at 664, Poonamallee High Road, Aminjikarai, Chennai – 600 029 beyond the demarcated line.

¶6

PRAYER in W.P.No.43801 of 2016: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents from interfering with peaceful possession of the property situated at 668, Poonamallee High Road, Aminjikarai, Chennai – 600 029 beyond the demarcated line.

¶7

The petitions are dismissed as withdrawn. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P.Nos.37611 and 37612 of 2016 are closed.

¶8

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶9

sasi

¶10

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶11

To:

¶12

The Secretary State of Tamil Nadu Highways Department Fort St. George Chennai – 600 009.

¶13

The District Collector Chennai District Chennai.

¶14

The Assistant Divisional Engineer Chennai City Roads (H) C & M Division No.2/193, Anna Salai, Little Mount

¶15

Chennai – 600 015.

¶16

The Tahsildar Egmore-Nungambakkam Taluk Spur Tank Road, Chetpet Chennai – 600 031.

¶17

The Member Secretary

¶18

Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road

¶19

Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.

¶20

+1cc to Mr.N. Sampath, Advocate, S.R.No.74518 +1cc to M/s.A. Jenasenan, Advocate, S.R.No.74630

¶21

+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.74711

¶22

VD(CO) EU 30.12.16

¶23

W.P.Nos.43800 and 43801 of 2016

¶24

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

U.Jaya Lakshmi, v. State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

U.Jaya Lakshmi, v. State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Chitrarasu Vs the District Collector

A.Anandan Vs Vikram Kapur

M. George @ S.George Raj Vs The Managing Director

M.Velmurugan, Advocate Vs State of Tamil Nadu

Baskar Babu, Vs The Commissioner

Elephant G.Rajendran, Vs The Collector