Disposed

N.Sundar, v. State Rep.by Its

Madras HC5 Sept 2018WP(MD)/10772/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench closed two common Writ Petitions after counsel submitted an official letter confirming a stay order from the Divisional Engineer. The court recorded the submission and closed the matters without granting additional relief.

What did the court decide?

No specific relief granted; Writ Petitions closed upon record submission confirming an external stay order. No order as to costs.

N.Sundar, Vs State Rep.by Its — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 05.09.2018

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU

¶6

W.P(MD).Nos.10772 & 10789 of 2018 and W.M.P(MD) Nos.9878 and 9879 & 9896 and 9897 of 2018

¶7

N. Sundar ... Petitioner in W.P(MD).No.10772 of 2018 A. Kanimozhi ... Petitioner in W.P(MD).No.10789 of 2018

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1. State rep by its The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai 625 402

¶10

1. The Divisional Engineer, Highways Department, Scheme of Planning Division, Madurai 625 002

¶11

1. The Superintendent Engineer, Highways Department, Construction and Maintenance, Madurai.

¶12

1. The District Revenue Officer, Madurai District, Madurai. ... Respondents in both W.P.'s

¶13

COMMON PRAYER: Writ Petitions have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned proceedings in Na.Ka.No.2693/2015/B4 dated 28.03.2018 issued by the first respondent and consequently restraining the respondents from in any way taking coercive steps to evict the petitioners from their house properties or demolishing the petitioners' house properties situated in Plot No.56 at S.No.109/6B, Sub Division No.109/6B2, Paravai, Saravana Nagar Extension, Madurai North Taluk, Madurai District and in plot No.28 at S.No.101/3A1A1A1, New https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Sub Division No.101/7 and 101/8,Paravai, Saravana Nagar Extension,

¶14

¶15

Madurai North Taluk, Madurai District respectively.

¶16

For petitioners : Mr.R.Senthil Kumar in both Writ Petitions

¶17

For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiyagarajan, in both Writ Petitions Government Advocate

¶18

C O M M O N O R D E R

¶19

As the issue involved in these Writ Petitions are one and the same, these cases are taken up and disposed by this Common Order.

¶20

The above writ petitions have been filed stating that for a common prayer to call for the records pertaining to the impugned proceedings issued in Na.Ka.No.2693/2015/B4 dated 28.03.2018 by the first respondent and consequently, restrain the respondents from taking coercive steps to evict the petitioners from their house properties or demolishing the petitioners' house properties situated in Plot No.56 at S.No.109/6B, Sub Division No.109/6B2, Paravai, Saravana Nagar Extension, Madurai North Taluk, Madurai District and in plot No.28 at S.No.101/3A1A1A1, New Sub Division No.101/7 and 101/8,Paravai, Saravana Nagar Extension, Madurai North Taluk, Madurai District respectively.

¶21

Today, when the writ petitions were taken up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted an official letter vide f/vz; :728/2018/,tm-2/ehs; :09.07.2018 of the Divisional Engineer (Highways), Planning Division, Madurai and the relevant portion is extracted as follows:-

¶22

“ghh;itapy; ,izf;fg;gl;l efy;fs; ,uz;oYk;. kJiu khtl;lj;jpy; guit ? Jthpkhd; fpuhk';fis ,izf;f itif Mw;wpd; Fwf;nf cah;kl;l ghyk; mikg;gjw;F guitg; gf;fk; mZFrhiy mikf;f epyk; ifafg;gLj;j (8646 r/kP) 15(2) mwptpf;if bra;Jk; mjw;fhd fUj;J nfl;g [f ; Tl;lKk; 02/05/2018 md;W kJiu. khtl;l Ml;rpah; jiyikapy; kJiu khtl;l Ml;rpah; tshfj;jpy; eilbgw;W. m';F bgwg;gl;l Ml;nrgiz kDf;fspd; mog;gilapy; nkw;go mZFrhiy khw;Wg;ghijapy; mikf;f cj;njrpf;fg;gl;L. mjw;fhd jpUj;jpa epyj;jpl;l mwpf;ifa [k; kJiu khtl;l tUtha; mjpfhhp mth;fSf;F rkh;g;gpf;fg;gl;L cs;sJ/ mjd; mog;gilapy; jw;nghJ khw;Wg;ghijapYk;. Vw;fdnt mike;Js;s FoapUg;g [g ; gFjpfspd; K:yk; xUtHpg; ghijapy; thfd';fs; bry;tjw;Fk;. guitg;gf;fk; cs;s ghyg; gFjpapid ,izg;gjw;F 2504 r/kP mstpy; kl;Lnk. vt;tpj FoapUg;g [ g ; gFjpfSk; ghjpf;fh tz;zk;. epyk; ifafg;gLj;jg;gLk;/ ,jdhy; kDjhuh;fspd; epyk; kw;Wk; fl;Lkhd';fs; ,k;khw;Wg; ghijapy; cs;s mZFrhiyapd; K:yk; vt;tpj ghjpg;g [k ; Vw;glhJ vd bjhptpf;fg;gLfpwJ/”

¶23

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

¶24

¶25

Therefore, recording the same, these Writ Petitions are closed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

Assistant Registrar (CS-III)

¶28

// True Copy //

¶29

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS-I)

¶30

¶31

1. The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai 625 402

¶32

1. The Divisional Engineer, Highways Department, Scheme of Planning Division, Madurai 625 002

¶33

1. The Superintendent Engineer, Highways Department, Construction and Maintenance, Madurai.

¶34

1. The District Revenue Officer, Madurai District, Madurai.

¶35

+2 CC To MR.R.SENTHIL KUMAR, Advocate SR. NO.82465 & 82466

¶36

Common Order made in W.P(MD).Nos.10772 & 10789 of 2018

¶37

05.09.2018

¶38

STS

¶39

TR/SV/SAR-I(24.09.2018)3P 7C

¶40

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

N.Sundar, v. State Rep.by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Sundar, v. State Rep.by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Riswana Begum, Vs the Inspector of Police

B.Soma Sekhar Vs the Regional Transport Officer

P.Dhanapackiathai, Vs Secretary to Government

K.Damodharan, Secretary, Vs the Director General of Police

Paramasivam Pillai, Vs the Commissioner

M/S.Banan Global Trading Vs the Union of India