Dismissed

M. Chellapandy v. the Tahsildar

Madras HC4 May 2017WA(MD)/506/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed the Writ Appeal challenging the lower court's decision to reject prayers for quashing a survey memo. The Court held there was no reason to interfere and directed that the survey proceed without prejudicing rights in the pending civil suit.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was dismissed; survey proceedings were directed to continue without prejudicing rights in the pending suit.

M. Chellapandy Vs the Tahsildar — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 04.05.2017 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.AUTHINATHAN

¶4

W.A.(MD)No.506 of 2017

¶5

and C.M.P.(MD)No.4376/2017

M.Chellapandy

.. Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Tahsildar, Manamadurai Taluk, Sivagangai District

¶10

2.The Sub Inspector, Manamadurai Taluk, Survey Department, Sivagangai District

¶11

3.R.Sethuraman .. Respondents

¶12

Writ Appeal has been filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order passed in W.P.(MD) No.4112 of 2017 dated 24.04.2017.

¶13

Prayer in WP(MD)No.4112 of 2017:-

¶14

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned memo issued by the 2nd respondent in his proceedings nil dated 06.03.2017 and to quash the same as illegal consequently directing the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the objection made by the petitioner through his legal notices dated 23.02.2017 and 29.06.2016 and pass orders in accordance with law in respect of measuring the land in survey No.270/2C2, to an extent of 5 acres 82 cents situated is Vellikurichi Village, Manamadurai Taluk, Sivagangai District.

¶15

For Appellant : Mr.G.R.Swaminathan for Mr.N.Satheesh Kumar For Respondents : Mr.M.Govindan for R1 and R2 Special Government Pleader Mr.V.Veerapandian for caveator

¶16

For Respondents

¶17

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

¶18

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.N.PRAKASH, J.) This writ appeal is directed against the order passed in W.P.(MD) No.4112 of 2017 dated 24.04.2017.

¶21

2.Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents 1 and 2 and the learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent.

¶22

3.On a perusal of the order passed by the writ Court, this Court does not find any reason to interfere in the order passed by the learned single Judge.

¶23

In the result, the writ appeal is dismissed. However, the survey at the instance of the third respondent shall go on and the same shall not in any way prejudice the rights of either parties in the suit, which is pending between them in O.S.No.161 of 2016 before the Sub Court, Sivagangai. No costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

Sd/-

Assistant Registrar

/True Copy/

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶28

¶29

1.The Tahsildar, Manamadurai Taluk, Sivagangai District

¶30

2.The Sub Inspector, Manamadurai Taluk, Survey Department, Sivagangai District

¶31

+One cc to Mr.N.Satheesh Kumar, Advocate, SR.No.55535 +One cc to M/s.Vast Law Associates, Advocate, SR.No.55565 +One cc to The Special Government Pleader, SR.No.55789 RR

¶32

RL/6C/2P/MR/SAR4/5.5.2017

¶33

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

¶34

ORDER MADE IN W.A.(MD)No.506 of 2017 and CMP No. 4376/2017

¶35

04.05.2017

M. Chellapandy v. the Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Chellapandy v. the Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Shanmugaiah Vs the District Collector

S.Murugan, Vs the Chief Manager &

T.Ramakrishna Konar, Vs the Superintendent of Police