Disposed

M.Kandhasamy v. the District Collector

Madras HC3 Dec 2024WP/36251/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In W.P.No.36251 of 2024, the petitioner sought mandamus to remove encroachments on specific lands in Ariyalur District. Due to missing annexures from related writ petitions, the Court acceded to the petitioner's prayer to withdraw the petition while preserving the right to file a future petition with complete papers. No costs were imposed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of as closed/withdrawn with preservation of rights to file a subsequent petition upon filing missing annexures.

M.Kandhasamy Vs the District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.36251 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 03.12.2024

¶4

Coram

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR

¶6

and

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR

¶8

W.P.No.36251 of 2024

M.Kandhasamy

S/o.Muthuvel

.. Petitioner

The District Collector O/o.the Collectorate

¶14

Ariyalur District

¶15

The District Revenue Officer O/o.The District Revenue Officer Ariyalur, Ariyalur District

¶16

The Revenue Divisional officer O/o.the Revenue Divisional Officer Udaiyarpalayam, Ariyalur District

¶17

The Tahsildar

¶18

O/o.the Tahsildar

¶19

Page 1 of 7

¶20

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶21

W.P.No.36251 of 2024

¶22

Ariyalur Taluk, Ariyalur District

¶23

The Tahsildar

¶24

O/o.the Tahsildar

¶25

Sendurai Taluk, Ariyalur District – 621 714

¶26

The Revenue Inspector O/o.the Revenue Inspector Ariyalur, Ariyalur District

¶27

The Block Development Officer O/o.the Block Development Officer Sendurai, Ariyalur District

¶28

Subramaniayan S/o.Thangasamy .. Respondents

¶29

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 5 to initiate appropriate action to remove the encroachments in land comprised in Pottaveli Village S.No.84/1B2 and 84/1B3, situated at Ariyalur Taluk and District and also land comprised in Nakkambadi Village, S.No.159, situated at Sendurai Taluk, Ariyalur District, on the basis of the petitioner's representations dated 28.08.2023 and 27.06.2024.

¶30

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Viswanathan

¶31

For Respondents : Mr.T.K.Saravanan Govt. Advocate for R1 to R6

¶32

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 2 of 7

¶33

W.P.No.36251 of 2024

¶34

Ms.P.Rajarajeswari Government Advocate for R7

¶35

O R D E R

¶36

(Order of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR, J.)

¶37

When the matter was taken up, it came to light that an order made

¶38

in a writ petition referred to by the writ petitioner in his representation

¶39

dated 27.06.2024 has not been annexed to the typed-set of papers.

¶40

We ferreted out the order i.e., order dated 27.04.2023 in W.P

¶41

(MD) No.10297 of 2023 and WMP thereat from the ECOURTS website.

¶42

On a perusal of the order we find that in paragraph 5, Hon'ble Division

¶43

Bench has observed that the impugned order in that matter is in

¶44

contravention of another order, namely order dated 28.03.2023 in W.P.No.6676 of 2023 etc., batch. This order has also not been annexed

¶45

in the typed-set of papers. Learned counsel fairly submitted that though

¶46

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 3 of 7

¶47

W.P.No.36251 of 2024

¶48

he has perused the aforementioned order dated 27.04.2023 in W.P (MD)

¶49

No.10297 of 2023, he has not perused the order dated 28.03.2023 in

¶50

W.P.No.6676 of 2023 etc., batch.

¶51

Faced with the above situation, learned counsel sought leave of

¶52

this Court to withdraw the captioned writ petition but made a plea to preserve the rights of the writ petitioner to come up with an appropriate / suitable writ petition on the same issue after perusing the aforementioned order/s and after duly annexing the same in the typed-set of papers. Request acceded to.

¶53

Endorsement in the case file is as follows:

¶54

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 4 of 7

¶55

W.P.No.36251 of 2024

¶56

In the light of the narrative thus far, captioned writ petition is

¶57

disposed of as closed / withdrawn albeit with preservation of rights in the

¶58

aforesaid manner. Considering the fair nature in which the submissions

¶59

were made, we refrain ourselves from imposing costs.

¶60

[M.S., J] [K.R.S., J] 03.12.2024

¶61

gpa

¶62

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 5 of 7

¶63

W.P.No.36251 of 2024

¶64

¶65

The District Collector O/o.the Collectorate Ariyalur District

¶66

The District Revenue Officer O/o.The District Revenue Officer Ariyalur, Ariyalur District

¶67

The Revenue Divisional officer O/o.the Revenue Divisional Officer Udaiyarpalayam, Ariyalur District

¶68

The Tahsildar O/o.the Tahsildar

¶69

Ariyalur Taluk, Ariyalur District

¶70

The Tahsildar

¶71

O/o.the Tahsildar

¶72

Sendurai Taluk, Ariyalur District – 621 714

¶73

The Revenue Inspector O/o.the Revenue Inspector Ariyalur, Ariyalur District

¶74

The Block Development Officer O/o.the Block Development Officer Sendurai, Ariyalur District

¶75

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 6 of 7

¶76

W.P.No.36251 of 2024

¶77

M.SUNDAR,J., and K.RAJASEKAR, J.,

¶78

gpa

¶79

W.P.No.36251 of 2024

¶80

03.12.2024

¶81

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 7 of 7

M.Kandhasamy v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Kandhasamy v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.Krishnamurthy Vs The District Collector

Mohammed Ilyas Vs The District Collector

Mb Power (Madhya Pradesh) Limited Vs Union of India

A.Natesan Vs The Secretary

S.Karthick Raja Vs the Chairman

D.Thavamani Vs the Director of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj