Dismissed

C.Gajendran, v. The District Collector

Madras HC3 Jan 2020WP/20895/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In four writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Madras High Court dismissed the petitions as withdrawn by the petitioners, who sought to withdraw them with liberty to resort to the same in an underlying civil suit pending in the District Munsif Court.

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions were dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioners to resort to the same in the civil suit..

C.Gajendran, Vs The District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 03.01.2020

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU

¶5

W.P. Nos. 20895, 20897, 20899 and 20900 of 2019 and W.M.P. Nos. 20099, 20100, 20102 and 20103 of 2019

¶6

C. Gajendran ... Petitioner in W.P. No. 20895 of 2019 C. Chandran ... Petitioner in W.P. No. 20897 of 2019 Bharathi ... Petitioner in W.P. No. 20899 of 2019 Valarmathi ... Petitioner in W.P. No. 20900 of 2019 Vs. 1. The District Collector, Salem District, Salem. 2. The Assistant Director of Rural Development, Salem. 3. The Tahsildar, Mettur Taluk, Mettur, Salem District.

¶7

The Block Development Officer, Block Development Office, Mecherry Post, Mettur Taluk, Salem District.

¶8

The Inspector of Police, Mecherry Police Station, Mettur Taluk, Salem District. 6. Ganesan

¶9

Archunan

¶10

Settu @ Subash

¶11

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

¶12

Murugesan

¶13

Kalaimani 11. Anbazhagan 12. Krishnan 13. Saravanan

¶14

Sundaram 15. Logu 16. Selvam 17. Ramesh ... Respondents in all W.Ps. (R6 to R17 are impleaded as per order dated 20.11.2019 W.M.P. 29325, 29327, 29329, 29330/2019 in W.P.20895, 20897,20899, 20900/2019)

¶15

Prayer in W.P. No. 20895 of 2019:- Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, restraining the Respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Petitioner and laying any mud or that road in 18 cents of patta land belongs to the Petitioner at Amani Olaippatti Village in Survey Number 126/2 and further direct the Fourth Respondent to restore the original physical features of the Petitioner's patta land till the disposal of the Civil Suit in O.S.No.106 of 2018 pending on the file of the Learned District Munsif at Mettur Dam-1.

¶16

Prayer in W.P. No. 20897 of 2019:- Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, restraining the Respondents from interfering with the Petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment and laying any mud or that road in 22 and ½ cents of patta land belongs to the Petitioner at Amani Olaippatti Village in Survey Number 126/2 and further direct the Fourth Respondent to restore the original physical features of the Petitioner's patta land till the disposal of the Civil Suit in O.S.No.106 of 2018 pending on the file of the Learned District Munsif at Mettur Dam-1.

¶17

Prayer in W.P. No. 20899 of 2019:- Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, restraining the Respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Petitioner and laying any mud or that road in 1320 Sq.ft (5 and ½ cents) of patta land belongs to the Petitioner at Amani Olaippatti Village in Survey

¶18

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

¶19

Number 126/2 and further directed the Fourth Respondent to restore the original physical features of the Petitioner's patta land till the disposal of the Civil Suit in O.S.No.106 of 2018 pending on the file of the Learned District Munsif at Mettur Dam-1.

¶20

Prayer in W.P. No. 20900 of 2019:- Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, restraining the Respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Petitioner and laying any mud or that road in 9 and ½ cents of patta land belongs to the Petitioner at Amani Olaippatti Village in Survey Number 126/2 and further directed the Fourth Respondent to restore the original physical features of the Petitioner's patta land till the disposal of the Civil Suit in O.S.No.106 of 2018 pending on the file of the Learned District Munsif at Mettur Dam-1.

¶21

When it is pointed out that the Petitioners could make an application in the suit in O.S. No. 106 of 2018 on the file of the District Munsif Court at Mettur Dam for the relief that has been sought in the Writ Petition, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner seeks permission of this court to withdraw these Writ Petitions with liberty to resort to the same and she has also made an endorsement to that effect, which is recorded.

¶22

Accordingly, these Writ Petitions are dismissed as withdrawn granting such with liberty. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.

¶23

True Copy

¶24

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶25

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

¶26

¶27

The District Collector,
Salem District, Salem.
2. The Assistant Director of Rural Development,
Salem.
3. The Tahsildar, Mettur Taluk,
Mettur, Salem District.
4. The Block Development Officer,
Block Development Office, Mecherry Post,
Mettur Taluk, Salem District.
5. The Inspector of Police,
Mecherry Police Station,
Mettur Taluk, Salem District.
+1 CC to Ms.S.T.P. Kuilmozhi, Advocate sr 389.
+1 CC to Govt. Pleader sr 1009.
W.P. Nos. 20895, 20897, 20899 and 20900 of 2019
JP(CO)
SP(13/02/2020)

¶28

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

C.Gajendran, v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Gajendran, v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Shanthi Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

A.Subramani Vs The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies

Mageshwari W/O. Mohan Vs the District collector

Selvi Vs The Chief Election Commissioner

E.Loganathan Vs District Revenue Officer (Dro)

Narayanasamy Naicker Vs The Regional Director