The High Court of Madras dismissed a writ petition sought under Article 226 for resurvey of land as infructuous, holding that the respondents had already considered the petitioner's representation and passed an order.
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: 18.08.2020
CORAM :
The HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY
W.P.No.18838 of 2013
Jothy
...Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Collector, Villupuram District, Villupuram. 2.The Tahsildar, Chinnasalem Taluk, Chinnasalem, Villupuram District.
3.The Village Administrative Officer,
Yervoipattinam Village and Post,
Kacharapalayam via,
Chinnasalem Taluk,
Villupuram District.
4.K.Varadhan ...Respondents (R4 impleaded vide order dated 11.09.2013 made in M.P.No.1 of 2013)
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to consider the representation dated 20.03.2013 of the petitioner for surveying 52 cents of land owned by the petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Govindaraj For Respondents : Ms.A.Madhumathi, Special Government Pleader (R1 to R3) R3 & R4 Dismissed vide Court Order dated 15.12.2014 O R D E R
The petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to consider the representation dated 20.03.2013 of the petitioner for surveying 52 cents of land owned by her.
2.When the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing, Ms.A.Madhumathi, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 submitted that the 2nd respondent had already considered the petitioner's representation dated 20.03.2013 and passed order as early as on 02.04.2013. Even in the counter filed by the 2nd respondent, it has been stated that the representation of the petitioner was considered on 02.04.2013 and a copy of the order was also sent by post to her.
3.Recording the averment stated in paragraph – 12 of the counter affidavit and also the submission made by the learned Special Government Pleader, the relief sought for in the Writ Petition has become infructuous. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS III)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
va
To
1.The District Collector,
Villupuram District, Villupuram.
2.The Tahsildar,
Chinnasalem Taluk, Chinnasalem,
Villupuram District.
3.The Village Administrative Officer,
Yervoipattinam Village and Post,
Kacharapalayam via,
Chinnasalem Taluk,
Villupuram District.
+1cc to Mr.K.Govindaraj, Advocate, S.R.No.27174
W.P.No.18838 of 2013
SSV(CO)
KKV/27/08/2020
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Jothy
District Collector, Villupuram District
Tahsildar, Chinnasalem Taluk
Village Administrative Officer, Yervoipattinam Village
K. Varadhan
M. Duraiswamy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
