Dismissed

Jayaraj.B v. The State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC2 Sept 2022WP(MD)/13706/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition under Article 226, the petitioner sought restraint against converting land into house sites. The Court noted that the reclassification order was already passed and served. Granting liberty to challenge the order via proper legal channels, the writ petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition and connected miscellaneous petition were dismissed; liberty granted to challenge the reclassification order by proper machinery.

Jayaraj.B Vs The State of Tamilnadu — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.13706 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 02.09.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.13706 of 2022 and

¶7

W.M.P.(MD).No.9737 of 2022

B.Jayaraj

... Petitioner

1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary to Government,

¶12

Revenue Department, Secretariat,

¶13

Fort St.George,

¶14

Chennai – 600 009.

¶15

2.The State of Tamil Nadu,

¶16

Represented by its Secretary to Government, Irrigation and Water Resource Department, Secretariat,

¶17

Fort St.George,

¶18

Chennai – 600 009.

¶19

3.The Commissioner of Land Acquisition, Chepauk, Chennai.

¶20

4.The District Collector, Tiruchirapalli.

¶21

... Respondents

¶22

1/4

¶23

W.P.(MD)No.13706 of 2022

¶24

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents from converting the Yeri in S.F.No.219/27, Irugalur Village, Manachanallur Taluk, Trichy District into house sites.

¶25

For Petitioner : Mr.AL.Ganthimathi

¶26

For Respondents : Mr.K.Balasubramani, Special Government Pleader.

¶27

ORDER

¶28

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶29

The petitioner wants this Court to restrain the respondents from converting the property in question into house sites.

¶30

When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned Special Government Pleader pointed out that the petition mentioned land was not a water body and that assignment in favour of the persons belonging to Narikuravar Community had already been made and the reclassification order

¶31

2/4

¶32

W.P.(MD)No.13706 of 2022

¶33

was passed on 15.06.2022 by the District Collector. Copies of the said proceedings have been served on the writ petitioner. It is for the writ petitioner to challenge the same in the manner known to law.

¶34

Granting such liberty to the writ petitioner, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.

¶35

02.09.2022

¶36

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No Nsr

¶37

3/4

¶38

W.P.(MD)No.13706 of 2022

¶39

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

¶40

Nsr

¶41

¶42

1.The Secretary to Government, The State of Tamil Nadu, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶43

2.The Secretary to Government, The State of Tamil Nadu, Irrigation and Water Resource Department, Secretariat,

¶44

Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶45

3.The Commissioner of Land Acquisition, Chepauk, Chennai.

¶46

4.The District Collector, Tiruchirapalli.

¶47

W.P.(MD)No.13706 of 2022

¶48

02.09.2022

¶49

4/4

Jayaraj.B v. The State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayaraj.B v. The State of Tamilnadu

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

Seenivasan Vs the District Collector

Sevagan.D Vs the Tahsildar

K.Pandi Vs The District Collector

Chinna Jeyaraman Vs The District Collector

Paramasivan, Vs The District Collector

Murugesan Vs The District Collector