Disposed

A.Raghunathan, v. the Deputy Superintendent of

Madras HC10 Feb 2021WP(MD)/14667/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ directing authorities to protect land and restrain trespassers. Court noted petitioner was reported dead; matter dated 2017 could not be considered at that stage. Petition disposed; legal heirs may file fresh representation.

What did the court decide?

Petiton disposed; legal heirs at liberty to file fresh representation for future cause of action. No costs. Connected petitions closed.

A.Raghunathan, Vs the Deputy Superintendent of — Property and Title | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

W.P.(MD).No.14667 of 2017

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 10.02.2021

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN

¶6

W.P.(MD).No.14667 of 2017 and WMP(MD)Nos.11496 & 11497 of 2017

¶7

A.Raghunathan ... Petitioner

¶8

-Vs-

¶9

1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Bodinayakkanur, Theni District.

¶10

2.The Inspector of Police, Bodinayakkanur Taluk Police Station, Bodinayakkanur, Theni District.

¶11

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Bodinayakkanur, Theni District.

¶12

4.The Tahsildar,

¶13

Bodinayakkanur Taluk, Theni District.

¶14

5.The Village Administrative Officer,

¶15

Mela Chokkanathapuram Village, Bodinayakkanur Taluk, Theni District.

¶16

6.Rathinam,

¶17

Representative of Arunthathiyar Sangam,

¶18

Keela Chokkanathapuram Village, Bodinayakkanur Taluk, Theni District.

¶19

7.Nataraj

¶20

8.PAndiyan

¶21

9.Perumal ... Respondents

¶22

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 5 to give adequate protection to the petitioner's property along with the existing fencing around the land to an extent of 1 acre 77 cents https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶23

1/3

¶24

W.P.(MD).No.14667 of 2017

¶25

in Survey No.435/1A1 situated at Mela Chokkanathapuram Village, Bodinayakkanur Taluk, Theni District and consequently, forbearing the respondents 6 to 9 and their fellowmen from trespassing into the petitioner's above said land by using as a public passage.

¶26

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Ananthapadmanabhan

¶27

For R1 to R5 : Mr.M.Ganesan Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶28

For R6 to R9 : Mr.R.Karunanidhi

¶29

ORDER

¶30

This writ petition has been filed for seeking a direction to direct the respondents 1 to 5 to give adequate protection to the petitioner's property along with the existing fencing around the land to an extent of 1 acre 77 cents in Survey No.435/1A1 situated at Mela Chokkanathapuram Village, Bodinayakkanur Taluk, Theni District and consequently, forbearing the respondents 6 to 9 and their fellowmen from trespassing into the petitioner's above said land by using as a public passage.

¶31

2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondents 1 to 5 and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 6 to 9.

¶32

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is reported to be dead. According to him, still the cause of action survives and the dispute is with regard to pathway to the cremation ground.

¶33

The matter is of the year 2017 and the prayer sought for by the petitioner cannot be considered at this stage. However, the legal heirs of the petitioner is at liberty to present a fresh representation if any fresh cause of action, arises.

¶34

5.With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶35

Assistant Registrar (CS-III)

¶36

// True Copy //

¶37

/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶38

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

¶39

2/3

¶40

W.P.(MD).No.14667 of 2017

¶41

dss

¶42

Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

¶43

¶44

1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Bodinayakkanur, Theni District.

¶45

2.The Inspector of Police, Bodinayakkanur Taluk Police Station, Bodinayakkanur, Theni District.

¶46

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Bodinayakkanur, Theni District. 4.The Tahsildar, Bodinayakkanur Taluk, Theni District. 5.The Village Administrative Officer, Mela Chokkanathapuram Village, Bodinayakkanur Taluk, Theni District.

¶47

W.P.(MD).No.14667 of 2017 and WMP(MD)Nos.11496 & 11497 of 2017 10.02.2021

¶48

VB (18.02.2021) 3P 6C

¶49

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

¶50

3/3

A.Raghunathan, v. the Deputy Superintendent of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Raghunathan, v. the Deputy Superintendent of

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

Chinna Nadar Vs The Inspector of Police

Muralikumar@Murali Vs The Inspector of Police

Aanestraj @ Anshtent Alagarsamy Vs The Inspector of Police

Vikki@Vignesh Vs The Deputy Superintendent of Police

A.Rjalingam S/O Arumugam Vs the Superintendent of Police

S.Muniyandi Vs The Commissioner of Police