Disposed

V.Vaijayanthi v. the District Collector

Madras HC25 Oct 2017WA/487/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge's disposal of a writ petition concerning land possession was vacated upon the appellant's application to withdraw the petition. The Court directed the appellant to withdraw the writ appeal and instructed the Civil Court to decide the underlying matter on merits without being bound by the earlier Single Judge's observations.

What did the court decide?

Permitted the appellant to withdraw the writ petition (WP.No.5315 of 2014).</p>

V.Vaijayanthi Vs the District Collector — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 25.10.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN And THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

¶5

W.A.No.487 of 2015

¶6

And
M.P.No.1 of 2015
V.Vaijayanthi ... Appellant
Vs.
1.The District Collector,
Kancheepuram District,
Kancheepuram.
2.The District Revenue Officer,
Kancheepuram District,
Kancheepuram.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Madurantakam, Kancheepuram District.
4.The Tahsildar,
Madurantakam Taluk,
Madurantakam, Kancheepuram District.
5.The Block Development Officer,
Madurantakam, Kancheepuram District.
6.P.Sanjeeva Reddy
7.G.Rajendran
8.V.Rajesh
9.N.Ramadas
10.V.Chandrasekaran
11.N.Vimala
12.Elumalai
13.R.Chamundeswari
14.K.Venkataperumal
15.V.Maheswari
16.K.Palayam
17.Mohana
18.Velan
19.Vannan

¶7

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

¶8

20.Devanbu 21.Stella Mary 22.R.Kalep Vincent 23.Naguran 24.S.Uma Devi 25.Kalpana 26.Velayudham 27.S.Gomathi 28.Thirumalai 29.R.Muniandi 30.Isaak 31.Venkatraman 32.Muthalu 33.Chellappan 34.R.Munuswamy 35.M.Murugammal 36.Kambegam 37.Manimekalai 38.Anandhi 39.E.Sundaramurthy 40.Dhanasingh 41.A.Marimuthu 42.Ganasekar 43.G.Mathal 44.Dhanivel 45.T.Jayakumar 46.Pushpa 47.Dhanapal 48.Puviarasan 49.Bagyalakshmi 50.S.Murali 51.D.Ruban 52.D.Rajeswari 53.M.Bhavani 54.Usha 55.M.Yessiah 56.E.Jone 57.M.Violet Mari 58.Dhanalakshmi 59.A.Dhanam 60.A.Chittrai 61.A.Ramesh 62.Yesudoss 63.Stanley Padmaraj 64.Antony 65.Samy 66.B.Renuka 67.Ramachandran 68.Nagalakshmi

¶9

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

¶10

69.C.Elumalai

¶11

70.C.Shenbagam 71.R.Sundaramurthy 72.Kanniappan 73.Chokkammal 74.K.Paramasasivan 75.R.Sachidanandam 76.Parimala 77.C.Nagalakshmi ... Respondents

¶12

Prayer:Writ appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent praying to set aside the order dated 23.01.2015 in W.P.No.5315 of 2014.

¶13

WP.5315/14:Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of Mandamus to forbearing the respondents herein their men and subordinates or any other persons authorized by them from interfering with the peaceful possession of the petitioner agriculture land bearing patta No. 461 of an extent of Acre.07.10 cents in Survey No. 647/3 647/4 647/5 647/7 647/8 and 655/2 at Keeralvadi Village Zamin Endathur Group Madurantakam Taluk Kancheepuram District without following the due process of law.

¶14

For Appellant : Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan Senior Counsel for Mr.P.Murali

¶15

For Respondents: Ms.A.Srijayanthi for R1 to R5 Special Government Pleader Mr.S.Ramesh for R6 to R77 J U D G M E N T (Judgment of the Court was delivered by K.K.SASIDHARAN,J.)

¶16

After hearing the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant at length and when it was pointed out as to whether this Court would be in a position to decide with regard to the existence of the road through the subject land, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that he would instruct the learned counsel on record to withdraw the very writ petition itself with liberty to approach the concerned Civil Court for appropriate relief.

¶17

2.The learned counsel on record has made an endorsement to that effect. In view of the endorsement so made, we permit the appellant to withdraw the writ petition in W.P.No.5315 of 2014. We make it clear that in case, the matter is taken up before Civil Court, the learned Civil Judge shall decide the suit in

¶18

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

¶19

accordance with law, after giving opportunity to all the parties to put forth their respective case.

¶20

3.We also make it clear that while dealing with the civil suit, the Civil Judge shall not be carried away by any of the observations made by the learned Single Judge in the order dated 23.01.2015 in W.P.No.5315 of 2014. We permit the parties to take up all the available contentions on facts as well as on law before the Civil Court.

¶21

4.The intra court appeal is disposed of as indicated above. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.

¶22

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CCC)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
pri
To
1.The District Collector,
Kancheepuram District,
Kancheepuram.
2.The District Revenue Officer,
Kancheepuram District,
Kancheepuram.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Madurantakam, Kancheepuram District.
4.The Tahsildar,
Madurantakam Taluk,
Madurantakam, Kancheepuram District.
5.The Block Development Officer,
Madurantakam, Kancheepuram District.
+1cc to Mr.A.L.Gandhimathi, Advocate, S.R.No.75814
+1cc to Mr.A.L.Gandhimathi, Advocate, S.R.No.75489
+1cc to Mr.S.Ramesh, Advocate, S.R.No.75565

¶23

W.A.No.487 of 2015 And M.P.No.1 of 2015 AD(CO) GN(15/11/2017)

¶24

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

V.Vaijayanthi v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Vaijayanthi v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Tamilnadu Slum Clearance Vs E.Ellammal

Tamilnadu Transmission Vs M/S.Den Erfolg Switchgears (P)

Ramasamy Vs the Assistant Engineer (Rural

The Member Secretary Vs S. Jayakumar

S.Murugesan Vs Metro Transport Corporation

A.a.Wahab Vs the State of Tamil Nadu