Dismissed¶30

Saravanan v. Arumugam

Madras HC8 Dec 2025WA(MD)/3180/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Saravanan and Balamurugan v. Arumugam and others, W.A.(MD) No.3180 of 2025, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, decided 08.12.2025 by DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN and K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JJ. Dispute over width of pathway to burial ground (Vidathukulam Village, Thirumangalam Taluk, Madurai); peace committee fixed 10 feet pathway with land owners' consent; appellants demanded 12 feet; held appeal frivolous, born of malice, appellants lacking interest/locus standi; appeal dismissed, no costs. Keywords: Clause 15 Letters Patent, burial ground pathway, peace committee, frivolous writ appeal, no interest in the cause.

What did the court decide?

This Writ Appeal is frivolous and had emanated out of some malice. ¶27

Saravanan Vs Arumugam — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

W.A.(MD)No.3180 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 08.12.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶6

W.A.(MD) No.3180 of 2025

¶7

1.Saravanan

¶8

2.Balamurugan ... Appellants

¶9

-vs-

¶10

1.Arumugam

¶11

The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai.

¶12

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Thirumangalam Division, Thirumangalam, Madurai District.

¶13

The Tahsildar, Thirumangalam Taluk, Madurai District.

¶14

_____________ Page 1 of 4_

¶15

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

¶16

Vidathukulam Village Panchayat, Rep by its Special Officer/block Development Officer, Thirumangalam Panchayat Union, Madurai District.

¶17

W.A.(MD)No.3180 of 2025

¶18

... Respondents

¶19

Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order, dated 27.10.2025, passed in W.P.(MD) No.29409 of 2025, on the file of this Court.

¶20

For Appellants : Mr.R.Balakrishnan For Respondents : Mr.D.Sasikumar, Addl. Govt. Pleader for R2 to R5

¶21

J U D G M E N T

¶22

[Judgment of the Court was made by DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.]

¶23

The appellants herein, being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge, who was reiterated the decision of the peace committee constituted by the authorities and decided that there shall be a 10 feet pathway for the burial ground, are now before this Court contending that 10 feet pathway is not sufficient and at least 12 feet pathway should be provided.

¶24

Page 2 of 4

¶25

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

¶26

W.A.(MD)No.3180 of 2025

¶27

2 . This Court finds that this Writ Appeal is frivolous and had emanated out of some malice. In a Writ Petition filed by the land owners that the authority should not take more than 10 feet from their patta land for laying pathway to burial ground, this Court has issued a positive direction and thereafter, peace committee meeting being constituted and in the peace committee meeting,

¶28

the land owners and the villagers participated and decided that there shall be 10 feet pathway to the burial ground and the land owners have agreed to give their land for laying 10 feet pathway. While so, the appellants want to reopen the issue by seeking 12 feet pathway.

¶29

3 . This Court finds that the appellants have no interest in the cause

¶30

either as land owners or persons aggrieved. Hence, the Writ Appeal stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶31

[G.J., J.] [K.K.R.K., J.] 08.12.2025

¶32

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No vsm

¶33

Page 3 of 4

¶34

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