Dismissed

Pappathi, W/O.Seerangan, v. the State of Tn., Rep.by the

Madras HC18 Aug 2021CRL RC/244/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras heard a criminal revision petition and a connected miscellaneous petition filed regarding land disputed as a public pathway. The Government Advocate contended the subject matter is a public path. Consequently, the court closed both the criminal revision case and the connected miscellaneous petition.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision case is closed. The connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.

Pappathi, W/O.Seerangan, Vs the State of Tn., Rep.by the — Property and Title | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 18.08.2021

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN

¶5

Crl.R.C.No.244 of 2015 and M.P.No.1 of 2015

¶6

Pappathi ..Petitioner/Appellant Vs.

¶7

The State of Tamilnadu rep.by The Inspector of Police, Erode South Police Station, Erode-638 009.

¶8

The District Revenue Officer, Erode, Office of the District Collector, Erode-631 011. 3. The Executive Magistrate cum Revenue Divisional Officer, Erode, Erode-638 001. ... Respondents 1 to 3 4.Neelavathi 5.Subban @ Subbramani 6.Ramasamy 7.Nachi 8.Sridhar 9.Tailor Palanichamy 10.Perumal 11.Murugesan 12.Sulaikarai Munusamy 13.Annakkli 14.Santhi 15.Vijaya 16.Kuppusamy 17.Lakshmi 18.Sathiskumar 19.Dhavamani 20.Paramasivam 21.Sakthi Murugesh .. Respondents 4 to 21 'B' Party PRAYER : Petition filed under Section 397 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records of the

¶9

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

¶10

proceedings of the second and third respondents made in Na.Ka.7678/2012 Vu1 dated 10.01.2014 and in Na.Ka.8964/2010/A3 dated 09.02.2012 respectively and set aside the same.

¶11

For Petitioner : No Appearance

¶12

For Respondents : Mr. R. Vinoth Raja, for R1 to R3 Government Advocate

¶13

Mr. I.C. Vasudevan, for R4, R6 to R8,R11 to R17 & R19

¶14

Mr. V. Kadhirvelu, for R9

¶15

R5 & R10 - Died No Appearance for R9

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

The matter is heard through "Video Conference".

¶18

The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) would contend that the subject matter of the property is being used as a public path way developed for the public.

¶19

Accordingly, the criminal revision case is closed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.

¶20

Sd/-

¶21

Assistant Registrar(CS VIII)

¶22

//True Copy//

¶23

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶24

¶25

¶26

The Inspector of Police,

¶27

Erode South Police Station,

¶28

Erode-638 009.

¶29

The District Revenue Officer, Erode,

¶30

Office of the District Collector,

¶31

Erode-631 011.

¶32

The Executive Magistrate cum Revenue Divisional Officer, Erode, Erode-638 001.

¶33

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

¶34

The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

¶35

+1CC to Mr.I.C.Vasudevan, Advocate, Sr.No.41550 +1CC to Mr.G.Devadoss, Advocate, Sr.No.41949

¶36

Crl.R.C.No.244 of 2015 and M.P.No.1 of 2015

¶37

VG-II (CO) K.RK. (21.09.2021)

¶38

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

Pappathi, W/O.Seerangan, v. the State of Tn., Rep.by the

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pappathi, W/O.Seerangan, v. the State of Tn., Rep.by the

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.Shanmugam Vs State Rep. by

Sarapoji Vs State Rep. by

Senthilkumar Vs State Rep. by

A.Paramasivam Vs K.Balasubramaniam

M. Mannar Vs State by S.I of Police

A.K.Mani Vs the State Rep by