Govindaraj v. The Assistant Engineer PWD
Case brief
What is this about?
Petitioners sought writ against eviction from land classified as Tharisu or water-body. Respondent assured eviction only after due process. Court closed petition as infructuous upon recalling earlier dismissal.
What did the court decide?
Writ petition and connected miscellaneous petition stood closed with no costs.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
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: 16.12.2020
CORAM :
The HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY
W.P.No.21644 of 2017 and W.M.P. No.22656 of 2017
1.Govindaraj 2.Ramesh 3.Poonkodi 4.Malar 5.P.Monagaran 6.Mukesh ... Petitioners Vs. The Assistant Engineer PWD, W.R.D. Irrigation Section, Padappai – 601 301. ... Respondent
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondent, their men/servants/agents from in any manner evicting the petitioners in their house constructed in the Survey No.404/3 situated at 6th Street, Sasivaradhan Nagar, Old Perungalathur, Chennai – 600 063 without following due process of law.
For Petitioners : Mr.A.Swaminathan For Respondent : Ms.A.Madhumathi, Special Government Pleader O R D E R
At the instance of Mr.A.Swaminathan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the matter has been listed under the caption “for being mentioned”.
2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that one Mr.T.K.Rajendra Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.23443 of 2017, instead of mentioning his matter, by mistake made a mention in respect of the present Writ Petition stating that the prayer sought for in the Writ Petition has become infructuous, hence, Mr.A.Swaminathan, learned counsel for the petitioners sought the permission to list the matter “for being mentioned”.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Govindaraj
- petitioner
Ramesh
- petitioner
Poonkodi
- petitioner
Malar
- petitioner
P. Monagaran
- petitioner
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court