k.Saravanakumar v. The District Revenue Officer

Madras HC18 Aug 2025WP/362/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court; W.P.Nos.362 and 1097 of 2019; WMP.Nos.366, 9289, 3025, 1239, 1831 and 3008 of 2019; Article 226 of the Constitution of India; writ of certiorari; District Revenue Officer Chennai; A2/007/2018 dated 02.01.2019; impleadment order dated 24.01.2019 in WMP.No.1846/2019; writ petitions closed as infructuous; no costs; T. Vinod Kumar, J.; decision dated 18.08.2025.

What did the court decide?

No relief on merits; both writ petitions closed as infructuous, connected miscellaneous petitions closed, with no costs. ¶¶38-39

k.Saravanakumar Vs The District Revenue Officer — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P.Nos.362 and 1097 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 18.08.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR

¶6

W.P.Nos.362 and 1097 of 2019 WMP.Nos.366, 9289, 3025, 1239, 1831 and 3008 of 2019,

¶7

K.Saravanakumar .. petitioner in WP.No.362 of 2019

¶8

1.K.Kalaimathi 2.B.Savitha 3.M.Uma

¶9

4.G.Shanthalakshmi

¶10

5.K.Gayathri 6.U.Vasugi 7.K.S.Jayaprakash

¶11

8.P.Manoharan

¶12

9.J.Mohanakrishnan .. Petitioners in WP.No.1097 of 2019

¶13

¶14

The District Revenue Officer Chennai.

¶15

2.Mrs.Girija .... respondents in WP.No.362 of 2019

¶16

The District Revenue Officer Chennai.

¶17

2.M.Vinothkumar 3.R. Kalaipandian 4.Pasupathi 5.R.Rajeshwari

¶18

1/4

¶19

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

¶20

W.P.Nos.362 and 1097 of 2019

¶21

6.G.Gowri

¶22

7.J.Jessie Sujatha 8.R.Jayapreetha

¶23

9.N.Nithya

¶24

(R2 to R9 are impleaded vide order dated 24.01.2019 in WMP.No.1846/2019)

¶25

... Respondents in WP.No.1097 of 2019

¶26

Common Prayer : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the order of the first respondent made in A2/007/2018 dated 02.01.2019 to quash the same in so far as the petitioner and the 2 nd

¶27

respondent is concerned.

¶28

For Petitioners : Mr.V.Dinesh in both cases.

¶29

For Respondents : Mr.C.Gauthamraj, for R1 in both cases. M/s.R.Arthi for R2 in WP.362/2019.

¶30

COMMON ORDER

¶31

Mr.V.Dinesh, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

¶32

cause in both the writ petitions does not survive for consideration and thus