S.Balamurugan, v. the District Collector
Case brief
What is this about?
Petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking direction to remove encroachments in Madurai. Upon hearing, learned counsel for respondents stated that the Revenue Divisional Officer had already removed the encroachment and agreed it was a common pathway. Consequently, the court found nothing survived for adjudication.
What did the court decide?
None granted; writ petition closed as encroachment was already removed and parties agreed on common pathway.
What the court decided
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 17.09.2018 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
W.P(MD)No.3555 of 2017
Balamurugan ... Petitioner
- vs.
- The District Collector, Madurai.
- The Commissioner Madurai Corporation Madurai City.
- The Commissioner of Police, Alagarkovil Road, Madurai City.
- The Assistant Commissioner Zonal No.1 T.B.Road, Madurai.
- The Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai, Madurai District.
- The Tahsildar, Madurai West, Ellis Nagar,Madurai
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Writ Petition regarding removal of encroachment required adjudication after the Revenue Divisional Officer agreed the area was a common pathway.
Whether there was any survival of the writ petition for adjudication given that the respondents carried out the removal order.
Whether the petitioner's representation regarding the restoration of the earlier shape met with no resistance from respondents.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Balamurugan
- respondent
The District Collector, Madurai
- respondent
The Commissioner Madurai Corporation Madurai City
- respondent
The Commissioner of Police, Alagarkovil Road, Madurai City
- respondent
The Assistant Commissioner Zonal No.1 T.B.Road, Madurai
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court