Tenants seeking to quash eviction proceedings in a writ petition filed under Article 226. The High Court found the writ petitions infructuous as the tenants had already been evicted by the Revenue Department before this order was passed, leading to dismissal.
None; writ petitions dismissed as infructuous due to prior eviction.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 09.08.2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM
W.P.No.10017 & 10018 of 2007
and M.P.Nos.1 & 1 of 2007
Ramu ...Petitioner in W.P.No.10017 of 2007
D.Elumalai ...Petitioner in W.P.No.10018 of 2007
Vs
1. The Executive Officer,
Arulmighu Virudhagiriswarar Temple,
Virudhachalam Town,
Cuddalore District.
2. Assistant Divisional Engineer (Highways),
Virudhachalam Town,
Cuddalore District.
3. The Tahsildar,
Virudhachalam Town,
Cuddalore District. ...Respondents
Common Prayer:- The Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records on the file of the 1st respondent in his proceedings nil and dated 13.03.2007 and quash the same as illegal, incompetent and without jurisdiction.
For Petitioners : Mr.V.Raghavachari
For Respondents : Mr.R.Sunil Kumar, for R1
Mr.B.Anand, G.A., for RR2 & 3
COMMON ORDER
Heard the learned counsels appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ramu
D.Elumalai
The Executive Officer, Arulmighu Virudhagiriswarar Temple
Assistant Divisional Engineer (Highways)
The Tahsildar
K.Kalyanasundaram
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
