Disposed¶25

Padhmanapan v. the District Collector

Madras HC17 Apr 2025WP/13389/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court; W.P. No.13389 of 2025; writ petition disposed as withdrawn/closed; liberty preserved to file PIL on same cause of action; removal of encroachment from Government poramboke land; Survey Nos.288/13, 289/1, 289/4 and others; Chengalpattu District; Thiruporur Tahsildar; District Collector; representation dated 27.09.2024; Article 226 mandamus; espousing cause of about 200 families; no order as to costs; order by M. Sundar, J. with K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi, J.; decided 17.04.2025.

What did the court decide?

Leave to withdraw the writ petition granted; WP disposed of as withdrawn/closed with preservation of the rights and contentions of the writ petitioner and/or anyone concerned to file a PIL on the same cause of action; no order as to costs. ¶25

Padhmanapan Vs the District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus should be issued directing the first respondent (District Collector, Chengalpattu District) to remove the encroachment from the Government poramboke land in the listed survey numbers by considering the petitioner's representation dated 27.09.2024.

¶14

Ratio / Principle

The captioned writ petition is disposed of as withdrawn/closed with preservation of the rights and contentions of the writ petitioner and/or anyone concerned for the matter to file a PIL on the same cause of action; there shall be no order as to costs.

¶25

Key takeaways

The withdrawal of the writ petition by the writ petitioner will not come in the way of any other person espousing the cause by filing a PIL; it is open to any other person concerned for the matter to file a PIL, if so advised and if so desired.obiter¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (M. Sundar and K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi, JJ.), W.P. No.13389 of 2025, decided 17.04.2025: A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by one Padhmanapan sought a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent, the District Collector, Chengalpattu District, to remove encroachments from Government poramboke land in numerous survey numbers (Nos.288/13, 289/1, 289/4 and others) by considering the petitioner's representation dated 27.09.2024; the other respondents were the District Revenue Officer, the Revenue Divisional Officer and the Tahsildar, Thiruporur. After some arguments, learned counsel for the writ petitioner, realising that the petition espoused the cause of about 200 families and should have been filed as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), sought leave to withdraw the writ petition with preservation of all rights and contentions to file a PIL on the same subject matter. The Court acceded to the request, disposed of the writ petition as withdrawn/closed with such preservation, clarified that the withdrawal would not come in the way of any other person espousing the cause by filing a PIL, and made no order as to costs.

¶1

W.P. No.13389 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 17.04.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR and

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K. GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI

¶7

W.P. No.13389 of 2025

¶8

Padhmanapan Petitioner

¶9

vs.

¶10

The District Collector Chengalpattu District Chengalpattu

¶11

The District Revenue Officer Chengalpattu District Chengalpattu

¶12

The Revenue Divisional Officer O/o the Revenue Divisional Officer Chengalpattu District Chengalpattu

¶13

The Tahsildar Thiruporur Tahsildar Office Thirupporur Chengalpattu District Respondents

¶14

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to remove the encroachment from the Government poramboke land in Survey Nos.288/13, 289/1, 289/4, 296/4, 301/8, 303/9, 306/5, 307/4, 308/2, 309/11, 309/17, 310/12, 319/1, 320/1, 322/1, 323/2, 324/8, 326/11, 331/1, 333/7, 333/10, 335/1, 337/1, 338/1, 338/3, 339/7, 340/1 and Page Nos.1/4

¶15

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

¶16

W.P. No.13389 of 2025

¶17

288/13, 289/1, 281/13, 281/24, 279/7, 279/10, 280/1, 280/12, 280/19, 282/12, 283/5, 290/3, 290/4, 290/14, 291/4, 292/17, 293/1, 293/19 and 305 by considering the petitioner's representation dated 27.09.2024.

¶18

For petitioner Mr. A. Venkatesan

¶19

ORDER

¶20

[made by M. SUNDAR, J.]

¶21

After some arguments, Mr. A. Venkatesan, learned counsel on record for the writ petitioner, realising that captioned 'writ petition' (hereinafter 'WP' for the sake of brevity) should be filed as Public Interest Litigation (PIL) as writ petitioner is espousing the cause of about 200 families, sought leave of this Court to withdraw the captioned WP but made a plea to preserve all the rights and contentions of the writ petitioner to file a PIL on the same subject matter. This request is acceded to. We add that it is open to any other person concerned for the matter to file a PIL, if so advised and if so desired. In other words, withdrawal of the captioned WP by the writ petitioner will not come in the way of any other person espousing the cause by filing a PIL. A scanned reproduction of the endorsement made by learned counsel for writ petitioner in the case file is as follows:

¶22

Page Nos.2/4

¶23

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

¶24

W.P. No.13389 of 2025

¶25

In the light of the narrative thus far, captioned WP is disposed of as withdrawn/closed albeit with preservation of rights and contentions of writ petitioner and/or anyone concerned for the matter to file a PIL on the same cause of action. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶26

(M.S., J.) (K.G.T., J.) 17.04.2025

¶27

cad Index : Yes/No NC : Yes/No

¶28

Page Nos.3/4

¶29

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

¶30

W.P. No.13389 of 2025

¶31

M.SUNDAR, J.