Dismissed

Arulmigu Mutharamman v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Madras HC10 Apr 2017WP(MD)/6271/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment records that the petitioner sought to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to approach the District Revenue Officer against the impugned order. The court granted permission for withdrawal and liberty to file a fresh suit. The petition was consequently dismissed as withdrawn.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to approach the District Revenue Officer.

Arulmigu Mutharamman Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 10.04.2017

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.PARTHIBAN

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.6271 of 2017 and WMP(MD) No.4954 of 2017

¶7

Arulmigu Mutharamman Thirukoil, Peyankuzhi,

¶8

Peyankuzhi Post,

¶9

Kalkulam Taluk, Kanyakumari District rep. By its Prdesident P.Gopalan

¶10

... Petitioner

¶11

-vs-

¶12

1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Padmanabhapuram, Thuckalay, Kalkulam Taluk, Kanyakumari District.

¶13

2.The Tahsildar,

¶14

Kalkulam Taluk, Thuckalay, Kanyakumari District.

¶15

3.Pathrose ... Respondents

¶16

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the impugned proceedings of the 1^st respondent bearing Roc.No.A3/1603/2015 dated 28.02.2017 and quash the same.

¶17

For Petitioner : Mrs.L.Victoria Gowri For Respondents 1&2 : Mr.D.Muruganandham, Additional Government Pleader.

¶18

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

¶19

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

After arguing some time, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court, to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to approach the District Revenue Olfficer, against the impugned order and she has also made an endorsement to that effect. In view of the endorsement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, granting such liberty, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.

Sd/-

Assistant Registrar

/True copy/

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶26

To:

¶27

1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Padmanabhapuram, Thuckalay, Kalkulam Taluk, Kanyakumari District.

¶28

2.The Tahsildar, Kalkulam Taluk, Thuckalay, Kanyakumari District.

¶29

+1 cc to Mr.L.Victoria Gowri , Advocate in SR.No.51283 +1 cc to Special Government Pleader, SR.NO.51509

¶30

Arul

¶31

AE/JC/SAR 2/19.04.2017/2c/5c

¶32

W.P.(MD) No.6271 of 2017 and WMP(MD) No.4954 of 2017 10.04.2017

¶33

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

Arulmigu Mutharamman v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arulmigu Mutharamman v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

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

Santhi, W/O. Sethu Rajendran, Vs the Union of India Rep. by Its

Mariappan, S/O.Velayutham Vs the District Collector

C.Isac Sobanaraj, Vs the Govt. of Tamilnadu

R. Ramamoorthi Vs the Deputy Superintendent of

A.Karuppandi Vs the Madurai Corporation

Gnanamalar, Vs the Tahsildar