Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

P.Natarajan Vs The District Collector — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Home
Madras HC
2025
P.Natarajan Vs The District CollectorP.Natarajan v. The District Collector

Allowed¶33

P.Natarajan v. The District Collector

Madras HC26 Feb 2025REV.APLW(MD)/12/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court Review Application (Writ)(MD) No.12 of 2025 by P.Natarajan (counsel K. Jeyamohan) seeking review/recall of the order dated 25.11.2024 in W.P.(MD)No.24964 of 2018 dismissing his writ petition against the District Collector, Kanyakumari's rejection dated 18.06.2018 of his request to remove an arch built by St. Marys Matric High Secondary School at its entrance. Bench: G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, J.; decided 26.02.2025. Filed under Order XLVII Rule-1 r/w Section 114, Code of Civil Procedure. Held: arch constructed in panchayat land (maintained as public road per petitioner; with due permission per school) — hence error in earlier dismissal premised on civil dispute over the school's patta land; order recalled, writ petition posted afresh for hearing; no costs. Keywords: review application writ, recall of judgment, writ petition restored, panchayat land versus patta land, arch encroachment, Methukummal/Munchirai Panchayat Union, Kaliyakkavilai, Kanyakumari District.

What did the court decide?

Review Application allowed; the Court's order dated 25.11.2024 in W.P.(MD)No.24964 of 2018 recalling/dismissing the writ petition is recalled, the writ petition is to be posted before the concerned Court for hearing, with no order as to cost. ¶33

Why is it important?

Since the arch has been constructed in the panchayat land, there is an error in the order dated 25.11.2024 passed by this Court, which therefore cannot be sustained and is liable to be reviewed. ¶32

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Review Application allowed; the Court's order dated 25.11.2024 in W.P.(MD)No.24964 of 2018 recalling/dismissing the writ petition is recalled, the writ petition is to be posted before the concerned Court for hearing, with no order as to cost.

Issue for consideration

Whether there is an error in this Court's order dated 25.11.2024 in W.P.(MD)No.24964 of 2018 dismissing the petitioner's writ petition, such that the order should be reviewed and recalled. +1 more

Court's answer

Since the arch has been constructed in the panchayat land, there is an error in the order dated 25.11.2024 passed by this Court, which therefore cannot be sustained and is liable to be reviewed.

Ratio / Principle

The order dated 25.11.2024 passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.24964 of 2018 is hereby recalled.

Key takeaways

The Registry is directed to post the writ petition W.P.(MD)No.24964 of 2018 before the concerned Court for hearing afresh.ratio¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Review granted — earlier dismissal recalled: The petitioner had challenged, in W.P.(MD)No.24964 of 2018, the District Collector's refusal dated 18.06.2018 to remove an arch constructed by the fifth respondent school (St. Marys Matric High Secondary School) at its entrance. This Court had dismissed that writ petition on 25.11.2024 on the ground of a civil dispute, the school claiming the arch stood on its own patta land. On review (filed under Order XLVII Rule-1 r/w Section 114 CPC), counsel for the petitioner submitted the arch was built in panchayat land maintained as a public road, and counsel for the school that it was constructed in the panchayat land with due permission. Finding an error in the earlier order on that basis, the Court recalled the order dated 25.11.2024 and directed the Registry to post the writ petition before the concerned Court for hearing; Review Application allowed, no costs.

A

Rev. Appln. (W)(MD) No.12 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 26.02.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

Review Application (Writ)(MD) No.12 of 2025

P.Natarajan

... Petitioner

Vs.

The District Collector, Kanyakumar District, Nagarcoil.

The Block Development Officer (Panchyats) Munchirai Panchayat Union, Puthukadai Post, Kanyakumari District.

The President, Methukummal First Grade Panchayat, Munchirai Panchayar Union, Methukummal Post, Kanyakumari District.

The Divisional Engineer, Highways Department, Kanyakumar District.

The Correspondent, St. Marys Matric High Secondary School, V. Andankanavilai Junction (Managiri) Kaliyakkavilai Post – 629 153, Kanyakumari District.

... Respondents

Prayer : Petition filed under Order XLVII Rule-1 r/w Section 114 of Code of

Page 1 of 4

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

Rev. Appln. (W)(MD) No.12 of 2025

Civil Procedure, to review the order passed in W.P.(MD).No.24964 of 2018 dated 25.11.2024 on the file of this Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Jeyamohan For Respondents For R1 to R4 : Mr.S.Vinodh Government Advocate For R5 : Ms.Mary Sowmy Rexy For M/s. Issac Chambers

ORDER

This petition has been filed to review the order dated 25.11.2024 passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.24964 of 2018, thereby dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner.

The petitioner filed the above writ petition challenging the order passed by the first respondent dated 18.06.2018, thereby rejecting the request made by the petitioner seeking removal of arch constructed by the fifth respondent school in the entrance of the school. This Court dismissed the above writ petition on the ground that there is civil dispute between the fifth respondent and petitioner, since according to the fifth respondent, the arch has been constructed in front of the school on its own patta land.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the arch has been constructed in the panchayat land, which is maintained as public

Page 2 of 4

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

Rev. Appln. (W)(MD) No.12 of 2025

road.

The learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent submitted

that the arch has been constructed in the panchayat land with due permission.

Considering the above submission, since the arch has been constructed in the panchayat land, there is an error in the order passed by this Court. Therefore, the order dated 25.11.2024, passed by this Court cannot be sustained and liable to be reviewed. Accordingly, order dated 25.11.2024 passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.24964 of 2018, is hereby recalled. Registry is directed to post the writ petition before the concerned Court for hearing.

Accordingly, the Review Application stands allowed. There shall be no order as to cost.

26.02.2025

Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking order Neutral Citation : Yes/No rts

Page 3 of 4

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

Rev. Appln. (W)(MD) No.12 of 2025

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

rts

To

The District Collector, Kanyakumar District, Nagarcoil.

The Block Development Officer (Panchyats) Munchirai Panchayat Union, Puthukadai Post, Kanyakumari District.

The President, Methukummal First Grade Panchayat, Munchirai Panchayar Union, Methukummal Post, Kanyakumari District.

The Divisional Engineer, Highways Department, Kanyakumar District.

The Correspondent, St. Marys Matric High Secondary School, V. Andankanavilai Junction (Managiri) Kaliyakkavilai Post – 629 153, Kanyakumari District.

Review Application (Writ)(MD) No.12 of 2025

26.02.2025

Page 4 of 4

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

Issues for consideration

2 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether there is an error in this Court's order dated 25.11.2024 in W.P.(MD)No.24964 of 2018 dismissing the petitioner's writ petition, such that the order should be reviewed and recalled.¶23
The court held
Since the arch has been constructed in the panchayat land, there is an error in the order dated 25.11.2024 passed by this Court, which therefore cannot be sustained and is liable to be reviewed.ratio¶32
2.
Whether the arch constructed by the fifth respondent school at its entrance stands in panchayat land maintained as a public road (as submitted for the petitioner) or on the school's own patta land (as claimed by the fifth respondent, which led the Court earlier to treat the matter as a civil dispute); the fifth respondent also submitted it was constructed with due permission.¶24

Statutes considered

1 provisions across 1 enactments

AI extract

Code of Civil ProcedureOrder XLVII Rule-1 read with Section 114¶16

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 25.11.2024 passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.24964 of 2018 dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner — the decision sought to be reviewed and now recalled.¶23
High Court of Judicature at Madras · 25.11.2024
Prior proceeding
First respondent (District Collector), by order dated 18.06.2018, rejected the petitioner's request seeking removal of the arch constructed by the fifth respondent school at the entrance of the school.¶24
Prior proceeding
Petitioner filed W.P.(MD)No.24964 of 2018 challenging the Collector's order dated 18.06.2018; this Court dismissed it on the ground that there is a civil dispute between the fifth respondent and the petitioner, since according to the fifth respondent the arch was constructed in front of the school on its own patta land.¶24

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
P.Natarajan¶7
Mr.K.Jeyamohan
respondent
The District Collector, Kanyakumar District, Nagarcoil.¶10
Mr.S.Vinodh
respondent
The Block Development Officer (Panchyats) Munchirai Panchayat Union, Puthukadai Post, Kanyakumari District.¶11
Mr.S.Vinodh
respondent
The President, Methukummal First Grade Panchayat, Munchirai Panchayar Union, Methukummal Post, Kanyakumari District.¶12
Mr.S.Vinodh
respondent
The Divisional Engineer, Highways Department, Kanyakumar District.¶13
Mr.S.Vinodh
respondent
The Correspondent, St. Marys Matric High Secondary School, V. Andankanavilai Junction (Managiri) Kaliyakkavilai Post – 629 153, Kanyakumari District.¶14
Ms.Mary Sowmy Rexy

Coram

AI extract

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYANauthor¶5

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Madras HC
Decided on: 26 Feb 2025 · February
Registered: 23 Jan 2025
Case no.: REV.APLW(MD)/12/2025
CNR: HCMD010065742025
Bench: G.k. Ilanthiraiyan
Disposal: ALLOWED
Case type: Review Application (Writ)(MD)

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from G.k. Ilanthiraiyan

Mohamed Mubarak Vs Sub Station Officer
25 Feb 2025
Arjunan Vs State Rep.by
25 Feb 2025
Ransom Anselm Murray Vs the State Rep by Its
25 Feb 2025
K.S.Ramaiah Vs Tirupathi
26 Feb 2025
Urmila Bhuvanesh Vs The Authorized Officer
26 Feb 2025
D.Priyadharshini Vs H.Gopalasubramanian
26 Feb 2025

Cite this judgement

P.Natarajan v. The District Collector, REV.APLW(MD)/12/2025 (MAD), decided on 26 February 2025.

The Madras High Court publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes1

Code of Civil ProcedureOrder XLVII Rule-1 read with Section 114

View all statutes

Procedural history3

Order dated 25.11.2024 passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.24964 of 2018 dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner — the decision sought to be reviewed and now recalled.High Court of Judicature at Madras · 25.11.2024
First respondent (District Collector), by order dated 18.06.2018, rejected the petitioner's request seeking removal of the arch constructed by the fifth respondent school at the entrance of the school.
Petitioner filed W.P.(MD)No.24964 of 2018 challenging the Collector's order dated 18.06.2018; this Court dismissed it on the ground that there is a civil dispute between the fifth respondent and the petitioner, since according to the fifth respondent the arch was constructed in front of the school on its own patta land.

View full history

Bench / Coram

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

Parties & counsel