Dismissed

S. Ramasamy, v. State Rep. by

Madras HC5 Apr 2017WP(MD)/6001/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus regarding disputed land records. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus regarding disputed land records. The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition as withdrawn by the petitioner. The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition as withdrawn by the petitioner on advice of counsel.

What did the court decide?

None granted; petition dismissed as withdrawn.

S. Ramasamy, Vs State Rep. by — Property and Title | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED 05.04.2017

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PARTHIBAN

¶6

W.P(MD)No.6001 of 2014 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2014

S.Ramasamy

..Petitioner

1.The State, represented by The District Collector, Tuticorin District.

¶11

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kovilpatti, Tuticorin District.

¶12

3.The Superintendant of Police, Tuticorin District.

¶13

4.The Tahsildar, Ottapidaram, Tuticorin District. 5.The Inspector of Police, Anti-Land Grabbing Cell, Tuticorin, Tuticorin District.

¶14

6.P.Guruvammal 7.R.Krishnasamy 8.R.Selvam 9.Subbulakshmi 10.Indira Gandhi 11.P.Jeyamurugan ..Respondents.

¶15

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to issue suitable directions to the fourth respondent to cancel the land records created by the respondents 6 to 11 and confirm the Petitioner's right over the property assigned by Assignment No.6/1408, dated 22.12.1998 and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Patta No.403, dated 27.5.1998 based oin the Petitioner's representation dated 29.1.2014 according to law within the time

¶16

¶17

stipulated by this Court and consequently to direct the 5^th respondent to take appropriate criminal action against the respondents 6 to 11.

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.S.MuthalRaj For Respondents : Mr.D.Muruganandam 1 to 5 Addl.Govt.Pleader For Respondents : Mr.R.Narayanan 6 to 10 For Respondent-11 : Mr.G.Venugopal for Mr.M.P.Senthil

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Mr.S.MuthalRaj, learned counsel on record for the Petitioner has circulated a letter to the Registry, dated 22.03.2017, seeking permission of this Court to withdraw this Writ Petition. The said letter is placed on record.

¶21

2.In view of the same, the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶22

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-III)

¶23

/True Copy/

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶25

¶26

1.The District Collector, Tuticorin District. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kovilpatti, Tuticorin District. 3.The Superintendant of Police, Tuticorin District. 4.The Tahsildar, Ottapidaram, Tuticorin District. 5.The Inspector of Police, Anti-Land Grabbing Cell, Tuticorin, Tuticorin District. +1cc to Mr.B.ROOBAN Advocate in SR. No.50113 +1cc to Mr.S.MUTHAL RAJ Advocate in SR. No.50114 VSN

¶27

JS/SV.MMS/SAR.4/17.04.2017/2P-8C W.P(MD)No.6001 of 2014

¶28

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

¶29

and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2014 05.04.2017

S. Ramasamy, v. State Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S. Ramasamy, v. State Rep. by

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

R. Theivanai Vs the Director of School

Syed Sulaiman Vs the Regional Passport

Mohith N Kumar, Vs Alagappa University

H.A. Sudhakar Vs the Joint Commissioner

K.Sarath Kumar, Vs the Manager

P.Periyamayan, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu