Punithavathi.S v. the District Collector
Case brief
What is this about?
Petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to prevent demolition of a temple alleged as encroachment on highway land. On hearing, petitioner's counsel stated the property was patta land and there was no disturbance, leading the court to close the petition without further adjudication.
What did the court decide?
Writ Petition closed; no further adjudication required; no costs awarded.
What the court decided
W.P(MD)No.9556 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 24.11.2021 CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN W.P(MD)No.9556 of 2021 and W.M.P(MD)No.7309 of 2021
S.Punithavathi ... Petitioner
Vs. 1.The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai. 2.The Tahsildar, Madurai South Taluk, Madurai District.
3.The Divisional Engineer, National Highways, Madurai Division, Madurai.
4.The Assistant Engineer, National Highways, O/o.Assistant Engineer, Tallakulam, Madurai. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents not to demolish the petitioner's Samathi Temple situated in R.S.No.12/4, Iravathanallur, Madurai, on the guise of an encroachment.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Sevugaraja For Respondents : Mr.B.Saravanan, Government Advocate
ORDER
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Writ Petition should be adjudicated upon in light of the petitioner's statement regarding lack of disturbance.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
S. Punithavathi
- respondent
The District Collector, Madurai District
- respondent
The Tahsildar, Madurai South Taluk
- respondent
The Divisional Engineer, National Highways, Madurai Division
- respondent
The Assistant Engineer, National Highways
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court