The Madurai Bench dismissed the writ petition seeking mandamus to prevent road closure. The bench held that since a title dispute regarding the land is pending in court, the factual disputes cannot be resolved in the writ petition, dismissing the application with no costs.
Writ of Mandamus dismissed; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.
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.(MD) No.22486 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 26.07.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.D.KRISHNAKUMAR, THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
W.P.(MD)No.22486 of 2018 and
W.M.P.(MD)Nos.20348 & 22255 of 2018
M.Muthusamy
... Petitioner
-Vs-
Page 1 of 4
W.P.(MD) No.22486 of 2018
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents herein not to close down the pathway of Madurai, Mathichiyam, North Street in Survey No.309, which is classified as road in the respondent's records and by considering the representation dated 26.10.2018.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Jeyaram For R1 to R3 : Mr.P.Thilakkumar, Government Pleader For R4 : Mr.K.Manisekaran
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by The Hon'ble The ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE]
The learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent, relying upon the counter affidavit, would submit that the land in T.S.No.309, which is a road, stands in the name of Corporation. However, one V.R.Veerappan filed two suits before the Sub Court, Madurai, seeking declaration and mandatory injunction against the Corporation not to interfere with the possession in respect of T.S.Nos.307, 308, 309, 313, 315, 414 & 415/1, which were decreed in favour of the said Veerappan. On First Appeal by the defendants, it was dismissed. Thereafter, the defendants filed Second Appeal in S.A.(MD)No.726 of 2013
before this Court, which is now pending.
Page 2 of 4
W.P.(MD) No.22486 of 2018
2.In such circumstances, we are of the view that since there is a title
dispute with regard to the land in question, all these disputed facts cannot be
decided by this Court in this Writ Petition. Therefore, this Writ Petition is dismissed. However, it is for the petitioner to workout her remedy in the manner known to law, if so advised. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
[D.K.K., A.C.J.] & [R.V., J.] 26.07.2024
NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No
Yuva
To
Page 3 of 4
W.P.(MD) No.22486 of 2018
D.KRISHNAKUMAR, A.C.J.
AND R.VIJAYAKUMAR , J.
Yuva
W.P.(MD)No.22486 of 2018
26.07.2024
Page 4 of 4
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court can decide the closure of a road amidst pending litigation on title disputes concerning the same land.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M.Muthusamy
Secretary to Government, Department of Municipalities
Director of Municipalities
District Collector, Madurai
Commissioner of Corporation, Madurai Corporation
D.Krishnakumar
R.Vijayakumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
