Disposed¶38

T.M.Karuppusamy v. the Revenue Tahsildar

Madras HC12 Feb 2025WP/4592/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition disposed as otiose; encroachment-removal notice by Revenue Tahsildar Gobichettipalayam withdrawn by State counsel; Article 226 certiorari; absence of show cause/opportunity; R.S. No.444/3, Koogalur E Village, Gobichettipalayam Taluk, Erode District; Koogalur Town Panchayath Executive Officer; proceedings before Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO); rights and contentions preserved for fresh proceedings; W.M.P. closed; no costs.

What did the court decide?

No affirmative judicial relief; main writ petition disposed of as the certiorari prayer became otiose after R1 withdrew the impugned notice, with rights and contentions of both sides preserved for any fresh proceedings; consequential W.M.P. closed; no order as to costs. ¶38

T.M.Karuppusamy Vs the Revenue Tahsildar — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P. No.4592 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 12.02.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR and

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE K. GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI

¶7

W.P. No.4592 of 2025 and W.M.P. No.5107 of 2025

T.M. Karuppusamy

Petitioner

vs.

The Revenue Tahsildar Gobichettipalayam Erode District

¶12

The Executive Officer Koogalur Town Panchayath Gobichettipalayam Taluk Erode District Respondents

¶13

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned notice dated 17.01.2025 passed in Na.Ka. 7104/2024/A1 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same.

¶14

For petitioner Mr. Kovi Ganesan

¶15

For R1 Mr. T.K. Saravanan Additional Government Pleader

¶16

For R2 Mr. J.C. Durairaj Additional Government Pleader

¶17

Page Nos.1/6

¶18

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

¶19

ORDER

¶20

[made by M.SUNDAR, J.]

¶21

W.P. No.4592 of 2025

¶22

Captioned main 'writ petition' (hereinafter 'WP' for the sake of brevity) has been filed with a certiorari prayer assailing a 'notice dated 17.01.2025 bearing reference Na.Ka.7104/2024/A1' (hereinafter 'impugned notice' for the sake of convenience and clarity) issued by R1.

¶23

Subject matter of impugned notice is 'R.S. No.444/3 in Koogalur E Village, Koogalur E Sub Taluk, Gobichettipalayam Taluk, Erode District' (hereinafter 'said land' for the sake of convenience and clarity).

¶24

Mr. K. Kovi Ganesan, learned counsel on record for writ petitioner, adverting to the impugned notice, submits that in and by the impugned notice, R1 has directly called upon the writ petitioner to remove a wall and wire fencing, which, according to R1, is allegedly an encroachment. Learned counsel submits that the writ petitioner has not been given an opportunity, much less show caused.

¶25

Page Nos.2/6

¶26

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

¶27

W.P. No.4592 of 2025

¶28

4. Issue notice.

¶29

Mr. T.K. Saravanan, learned Additional Government

¶30

Pleader, accepts notice for R1 and Mr. J.C. Durairaj, learned Additional Government Pleader, accepts notice for R2.

¶31

Mr. T.K. Saravanan, learned State counsel for R1 very fairly submits that the impugned notice stands withdrawn. This submission is recorded.

¶32

Learned State counsel submits that some proceedings pertaining to said land is underway before jurisdictional Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) and other proceedings (if any and if that be so) if commenced, will be such that writ petitioner is show caused. This submission is also recorded.

¶33

In the light of the narrative thus far, certiorari prayer has become otiose owing to the stated position of the learned State counsel for R1. However, though obvious, we make it clear that rights

¶34

Page Nos.3/6

¶35

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

¶36

W.P. No.4592 of 2025

¶37

and contentions of both sides are preserved if fresh proceedings are commenced.

¶38