Disposed

M. Vaiyalingam v. the Commissioner

Madras HC23 Oct 2019WP(MD)/13657/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners approached this court for a writ of mandamus to restrain authorities from interfering with their property and forming a road. The respondents submitted there was no proposal to acquire the land, which removed the petitioners' apprehension. Consequently, the petition was disposed of without costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of by recording the submission that there is no proposal to acquire the land. No costs awarded.

M. Vaiyalingam Vs the Commissioner — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.13657 of 2009

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 23.10.2019 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR W.P(MD)No.13657 of 2009 and M.P(MD)No.2 of 2009

1.M.Vaiyalingam

2.M.Ponnuthai

... Petitioners

vs.

1.The Commissioner, Municipality, Melur.

¶9

2.The Thasildar, Melur Taluk, Madurai District.

¶10

3.The District Collector, Madurai, Madurai District. ... Respondents

¶11

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to forbear the respondents authority from interfering into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners' property in R.S.No.305/4B1 bearing present Town Survey No.200 of Melur Municipality to an extent of 77 cents and from forming a road in his patta property.

¶12

For Petitioners : Mr.J.Alaguram Jothi For R – 1 : Ms.N.Shanthi Priya

¶13

for Mr.J.Gunaseelan Muthiah

¶14

For RR 2 & 3 : Mr.M.Pandiarajan,

¶15

Additional Government Pleader

¶16

ORDER

¶17

This matter was listed today under the caption 'FOR DISMISSAL' an d Mr.J.Alaguram Jothi, learned counsel on record for writ petitioners expresses regret and tenders an apology for nonappearance in the last hearing.

¶18

2.Apology accepted.

¶19

3.M r.J.Alaguram Jothi, learned counsel on record for writ petitioners, Ms.N.Shanthi Priya, learned counsel representing Mr.J.Gunaseelan Muthiah, learned Standing Counsel on behalf of first respondent and Mr.M.Pandiarajan, learned Additional Government Pleader on behalf of respondents 2 and 3 are before this Court. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶20

1/2

¶21

W.P(MD)No.13657 of 2009

¶22

4.With consent of all the aforementioned learned counsel, main writ petition is taken up, heard out and is being disposed of.

¶23

5.This Writ Petition now turns on an extremely narrow compass.

¶24

6. '77 cents of land comprised in R.S.No.305/4B1 with the present Town Survey No.200 in Melur Municipality' (hereinafter referred to as 'said land' for brevity, clarity and convenience) forms subject matter of instant Writ Petition.

¶25

7. Instant Writ Petition has been filed by writ petitioners owing to their apprehension that said land (which according to writ petitioners belong to them) is likely to be taken away by the respondents for formation of road.

¶26

8. Today, aforesaid Standing Counsel for first respondent and State Counsel for respondents 2 and 3 submit that as of now, there is no proposal to acquire said land. This submission is recorded.

¶27

9. As this douses the anxiety / apprehension of the writ petitioners which is the sole and solitary basis on which instant Writ Petition is predicated, no further orders are required.

¶28

10. Instant Writ Petition is disposed of recording the aforesaid submission / stated position of respondents. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶29

Assistant Registrar (Crl.Side)

¶30

// True Copy //

¶31

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS )

¶32

¶33

¶34

1.The District Collector, Madurai, Madurai District.

¶35

2.The Commissioner, Municipality, Melur.

¶36

3.The Thasildar, Melur Taluk, Madurai District.

¶37

+1 CC to SPL GP SR-94610.

¶38

+1 CC to M/s.J.GUNASEELANMUTHIAH, Advocate SR-94342.

¶39

W.P(MD)No.13657 of 2009 23.10.2019

¶40

CS(06.11.2019) 2P 6C

¶41

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

¶42

2/2

M. Vaiyalingam v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Vaiyalingam v. the Commissioner

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

S.Raju Vs the District Collector

M. Arockiyadoss Vs the District Collector

Kamalam @ Kamalam Mokkapandy Vs the District Collector

M.Thiagarajan Vs The District Collector

Rajasekar Vs The District Collector

Akbar Ali Ambalam Vs the District Collector