Dismissed

A. Venkadaraju v. The District Collector

Madras HC5 Sept 2019WP/25013/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners filed a writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus to restrain the fifth respondent from interfering with their agricultural land possession. However, the petitioners sought to withdraw the petition with liberty to challenge the allotment order without asserting the validity of such order in the petition. The Court dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn.

What the court decided

AI extract

A. Venkadaraju Vs The District Collector — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 05.09.2019 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU W.P. No. 25013 of 2019 and W.M.P. No.24589 of 2019

¶2

1.A.Venkadaraju 2.V.Shreevasareddy 3.B.Chinnaiyappa 4.B.Yallappa

¶3

... Petitioners Vs. 1.The District Collector, Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri-1. 2.The Tahsildar, Hosur Taluk, Hosur, Krishnagiri District.

¶4

3.The Superintendent of Police, Krishnagiri District. 4.The Inspector of Police, Berigai Police Station, Berigai, Krishnagiri District.

¶5

5.Pash Space International PVT Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director, A.Alam Pasha, Krishnagiri Main Road, Veppanahalli, Krishnagiri District. ... Respondents

¶6

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the 5^th respondent herein, their men and subordinates or any other persons authorized by them from interfering with the peaceful possession of the petitioner agriculture land, Survey No.78, 86 of an extent of Hectares. 10.60.0, at B.S.Thimmasandhiram Village, Berigai Group, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District, without following the due process of law.

¶7

For Petitioners : Mr.S.Gajapathykrishnan

¶8

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

¶9

For Respondents : Mr.R.Venkatesh, Government Advocate for R1 to R4

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

It is pointed out by Mr. R. Venkatesh, Learned Government Advocate appearing for the First to Fourth Respondents that the Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioner claiming for possession of the agricultural land allotted to the Fifth Respondent without challenging such allotment. In view of the same, Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the Writ Petition with liberty to challenge the allotment order issued in favour of the Fifth Respondent and seek incidental and ancillary reliefs, and he also made an endorsement to that effect, which is recorded.

¶12

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn
granting such liberty. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous
Petition is closed. No costs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS III)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1.The District Collector,
Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri-1.
2.The Tahsildar,
Hosur Taluk,
Hosur, Krishnagiri District.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Krishnagiri District.
4.The Inspector of Police,
Berigai Police Station, Berigai,
Krishnagiri District.
+1cc to Government Pleader sr.77710

¶13

W.P. No. 25013 of 2019

¶14

nr 17/09/2019

¶15

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

A. Venkadaraju v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A. Venkadaraju v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Seethalakshmi Vs The Principal Secretary to Govt

P.H.Sadiq Basha Vs The Executive Engineer

M.Sulthan Vs The Managing Director

P.Maira Packia Seelan Vs the Director of School

A.Muthusamy Vs The District Collector

M/s.Annai Solid Blocks, Vs The District Collector