Disposed¶28

S.Srinivasan v. the District Collector

Madras HC25 Jun 2025WP/18116/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition (mandamus under Article 226) seeking removal of encroachment by respondent No.4 from petitioner's property at Survey No.119/2, 1592 sq.ft., Noombal Village, and restoration of possession; respondents: District Collector Tiruvallur, Tahsildar Poonamallee Taluk, State rep. by Inspector of Police T-5 Vanagaram Police Station; petition withdrawn after arguments; withdrawal permitted with preservation of rights and contentions; civil Court to decide same subject matter on its own merits untrammelled by withdrawal; no costs.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; writ petition disposed of as closed/withdrawn with preservation of the petitioner's rights and contentions to pursue remedies in a civil Court, and no order as to costs. ¶28

S.Srinivasan Vs the District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief; writ petition disposed of as closed/withdrawn with preservation of the petitioner's rights and contentions to pursue remedies in a civil Court, and no order as to costs.

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether a Writ of Mandamus should issue directing respondents 1 to 3 to take immediate steps to remove the encroachment by respondent No.4 from the petitioner's property situated at Survey No.119/2 measuring 1592 sq.ft., Noombal Village, and restore possession to the petitioner (not adjudicated; petition withdrawn after some arguments).

¶15

Ratio / Principle

Leave to withdraw the writ petition was sought by counsel for the writ petitioner with a plea to preserve all rights and contentions so that the petitioner may work out his remedies in a civil Court; the Court acceded to this request.

¶21

Key takeaways

The writ petition was disposed of as closed/withdrawn, with preservation of the rights and contentions of the writ petitioner.ratio¶28
Rider: if the writ petitioner approaches the civil Court with the same subject matter, the civil Court shall deal with the matter on its own merits and in accordance with law, untrammelled by the withdrawal of the writ petition; there shall be no order as to costs.ratio¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court, W.P.No.18116 of 2025 (order by M.Sundar J., bench incl. Hemant Chandangoudar J., dated 25.06.2025). The petitioner sought a mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution directing respondents 1 to 3 (District Collector, Tiruvallur; Tahsildar, Poonamallee Taluk; the State rep. by Inspector of Police, T-5 Vanagaram Police Station) to remove the alleged encroachment by respondent No.4 (Poongavanam) from his property at Survey No.119/2 measuring 1592 sq.ft., Noombal Village, and restore possession. After some arguments, Mr.R.Rajesh, learned counsel for the writ petitioner, sought leave to withdraw the petition with preservation of rights; the Court acceded and disposed of the writ petition as closed/withdrawn, preserving the petitioner's rights and contentions to work out remedies before a civil Court, with a rider that any civil Court seized of the same subject matter shall deal with it on its own merits and in accordance with law untrammelled by the withdrawal of the writ petition. There was no order as to costs.

¶1

W.P.No.18116 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 25.06.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR and

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶7

W.P.No.18116 of 2025

S.Srinivasan

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The District Collector, Tiruvallur District.

¶12

2.The Tahsildar, Poonamallee Taluk, Tiruvallur District.

¶13

3.The State rep. By The Inspector of Police, T-5 Vanagaram Police Station, Vanagaram, Tiruvallur.

¶14

4.Poongavanam ... Respondents

¶15

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing respondents 1 to 3 to take immediate steps to remove the encroachment by respondent No.4 from the petitioner's property situated at Survey No.119/2 measuring 1592 sq.ft., Noombal Village and restore possession to the petitioner.

¶16

Page Nos.1/4

¶17

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

¶18

W.P.No.18116 of 2025

¶19

ORDER

¶20

[Order of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR, J. ,]

¶21

After some arguments, Mr.R.Rajesh, learned counsel on record for writ petitioner sought leave of this Court to withdraw captioned 'Writ Petition' (hereinafter 'WP' for the sake of brevity) but made a fervent plea to preserve all the rights and contentions of the writ petitioner to work out his remedies in a civil Court. This request is acceded to.

¶22

Learned counsel on record for writ petitioner has made an

¶23

endorsement in the case file and a scanned reproduction of the same is as follows:

¶24

Page Nos.2/4

¶25

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

¶26

W.P.No.18116 of 2025

¶27

3. In the light of the narrative thus far, captioned WP is disposed

¶28

of as closed/withdrawn albeit with preservation of rights and contentions of the writ petitioner in the aforesaid manner and further rider that if the writ petitioner approaches the civil Court with the same subject matter, the civil Court shall deal with the matter on its own merits and in accordance with law untrammelled by withdrawal of captioned WP. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶29

(M.S.,J.) (H.C.,J.) 25.06.2025

¶30

Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No mmi

¶31

¶32

1.The District Collector, Tiruvallur District.

¶33

2.The Tahsildar, Poonamallee Taluk, Tiruvallur District.

¶34

3.The Inspector of Police, T-5 Vanagaram Police Station, Vanagaram, Tiruvallur.

¶35

Page Nos.3/4

¶36

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

¶37

W.P.No.18116 of 2025

¶38

M.SUNDAR, J., and HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.,

¶39

mmi

¶40

W.P.No.18116 of 2025

¶41

25.06.2025

¶42

Page Nos.4/4

¶43

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

S.Srinivasan v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Srinivasan v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K. Kolanjinadhan Vs the Secretary to Government

N.Gowri Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

V.R.Ranganathan Vs The District Collector

S.Santhanakumar Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

S.Kaliyaperumal Vs the District Collector

L.Selvaraju Vs the District Collector