Partly allowed

P.Murugesan, v. N.Murugesan

Madras HC12 Nov 2021CMP(MD)/9314/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order grants leave to file a writ appeal against the judgment in W.P. No. 17633 of 2021 which directed respondents to lay a tar road. The Court disposed of the petition by directing the 5th respondent to enquire into the land objection issue after a personal hearing before taking a final decision.

What did the court decide?

Leave to appeal granted. 5th respondent to enquire into objections after hearing and decide.

P.Murugesan, Vs N.Murugesan — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

CMP(MD) No.9314 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Civil Appellate Jurisdiction )

¶3

Friday, the Twelfth day of November Two Thousand and Twenty One

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Honble Mrs.Justice PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA and The Honble Mr.Justice P.VELMURUGAN

¶6

CMP(MD) No.9314 of 2021 IN WA(MD)SR.No.55117 of 2021

¶7

P.MURUGESAN ... APPELLANT/RESPONDENT

¶8

¶9

1 N.MURUGESAN ... 1^st RESPONDENT/WRIT PETITIONER

¶10

2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TRICHY DISTRICT.

¶11

3 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, TRICHY DISTRICT.

¶12

4 THE TAHSILDAR,

¶13

THOTTIYAM TALUK, TRICHY DISTRICT.

¶14

5 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

¶15

THOTTIYAM POLICE STATION, TRICHY DISTRICT.

¶16

6 THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, VILLAGE PANCHAYAT, THOTTIYAM UNION,

¶17

TRICHY DISTRICT.

¶18

7 THE PRESIDENT,

¶19

UNNIYUR VILLAGE PANCHAYAT, THOTTIYAM UNION,

¶20

TRICHY DISTRICT. ... RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶21

Petition filed praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the affidavit filed therewith the High Court may be pleased to grant leave to the Petitioner to file the present Writ Appeal challenging the orders made in W.P. (MD)No. 17633 of 2021 dated 30-09-2021.

¶22

PRAYER IN WA(MD)SR.No.55117 of 2021:

¶23

Pleased to allow the appeal an set aside the order of this Hon'ble Court made in W.P.No.17633 of 2021 dated 30.09.2021. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶24

1/3

¶25

CMP(MD) No.9314 of 2021

¶26

ORDER : This petition coming up for orders on this day, upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of MR.K.GOVINDARAJAN, Advocate for M/S.R.MURALI, Advocate for the petitioner and of Mr.P.SUBBARAJ, Special Government Pleader on behalf of the Respondents 2 to 6, the Court made the following order:-

¶27

(Order of the Court was made by PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.)

¶28

This petition is filed seeking leave to file appeal against the order passed in W.P(MD)No.17633 of 2021 dated 30.09.2021.

¶29

The said writ petition was for a Mandamus, which was disposed of, directing the respondents to take necessary action, on the petitioner's request, for laying a Tar road, after carrying out all preparatory activities. It was further directed that an opportunity may be provided to the writ petitioner or any other person, who would be affected by the issuance of the said Mandamus.

¶30

Though the order does not specifically state which respondent to consider, the grievance of the petitioner now is that, the Tar road cannot be laid, as it is an agricultural land.

¶31

Whatever may be the reason, it is open to the petitioner herein, to go and make his objections before the 5^th respondent/Block Development Officer, Thottiyam Union, Trichy District. Pursuant to the earlier direction given in the writ petition, the 5^th respondent/Block Development Officer, is directed to enquire into the issue, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the writ petitioner as well as the petitioner herein, and any other person, who has got any objections and then take a final decision.

¶32

With the above direction, this petition is disposed of.

¶33

sd/-

¶34

12/11/2021

¶35

/ TRUE COPY /

¶36

/ /2021

¶37

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.)

¶38

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,

¶39

Madurai - 625 023.

¶40

¶41

1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TRICHY DISTRICT.

¶42

2 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, TRICHY DISTRICT.

¶43

3 THE TAHSILDAR,

¶44

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ THOTTIYAM TALUK, TRICHY DISTRICT.

¶45

2/3

¶46

CMP(MD) No.9314 of 2021

¶47

4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

¶48

THOTTIYAM POLICE STATION, TRICHY DISTRICT.

¶49

5 THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,

¶50

VILLAGE PANCHAYAT, THOTTIYAM UNION,

¶51

TRICHY DISTRICT.

¶52

ORDER

¶53

¶54

CMP(MD) No.9314 of 2021

¶55

¶56

WA(MD)SR.No.55117 of 2021

¶57

Date :12/11/2021

¶58

SS/CN/SAR-III/18.11.2021 : 3P/6C

¶59

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

¶60

3/3

P.Murugesan, v. N.Murugesan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Murugesan, v. N.Murugesan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The District Elementary Educational Officer Vs G. Queen

Rajangam, Vs the Union of India

Sivalingam Vs the District Collector

Michael Selvaraju. a Vs the Bar Council of Tamilnadu and Puducherry

Smt.Jeyarathinam @ Vs the Presiding Officer

The Management Vs the Presiding Officer