A writ petition sought cancellation of a patta allegedly issued over land used locally as a burial ground and encroaching a road. The court found the petitioner offered no substantive evidence, only two photographs of a shed on barren land, concluded no case for public interest litigation arose, and dismissed the petition without costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.No.34343 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 12.12.2024
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.K.R.SHRIRAM, CHIEF JUSTICE AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
W.P.No.34343 of 2024
C.Vijayakumar
... Petitioner
-vs-
... Respondents
___________ Page 1 of 4_
W.P.No.34343 of 2024
Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 4 to take necessary action to cancel the Patta No.428 issued in favour of the 5th respondent in respect of property, situated at Mambudur Village, Uthiramerur Taluk, Kancheepuram District, comprised in S.No.191/1D2, measuring to an extent of acres 2.79 cents and also encroached and damaged the road in S.Nos.191/1A1, 191/1B and 191/1C on the basis of the petitioner's representations, more particularly, the representation dated 29.07.2024.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Thanjan For Respondents : Mr.A.Edwin Prabakar State Govt. Pleader Assisted by Mr.M.Habeeb Rahman, Govt. Advocate, for RR 1 to 4
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
Counsel for petitioner keeps repeating that a burial ground land has been converted into patta land. When we asked the counsel to show some photographs or at least some evidence that the land was a burial ground, counsel showed us two photographs of a shed in a barren land. It does not
___________ Page 2 of 4_
W.P.No.34343 of 2024
indicate anywhere that it was a burial ground. Counsel now clarifies that originally it was a 'Tharisu' land, means 'dry assessed waste land', which people in the locality, were using as a burial ground.
In our view, no case for public interest litigation is made out. Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(K.R.SHRIRAM., CJ.) (SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.)
12.12.2024
Index : Yes/No NC : Yes/No
sra
To
Page 3 of 4
W.P.No.34343 of 2024
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY,J.
(sra)
W.P.No.34343 of 2024
12.12.2024
___________ Page 4 of 4_
1 issue framed by the court
Whether cancellation of Patta No.428 issued over alleged burial ground land warranted a writ of mandamus in public interest.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
C.Vijayakumar
The District Collector, Kancheepuram District
The Tahsildar, Uthiramerur Taluk
The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kancheepuram Range
The Block Development Officer, Uthiramerur Taluk
Kanthammal
K.R.Shriram
Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
