Disposed

Ramar v. The District Collector

Madras HC6 Aug 2025WP(MD)/21529/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition sought a direction not to acquire the petitioner's land in Survey Nos. 378/8A and 378/8B, Velanoorani Revenue Village, Tiruchuzhi Taluk, without due process. Government Pleader stated there is presently no proposal to acquire the land; the statement was recorded and the writ petition was closed.

What did the court decide?

Statement recorded that no acquisition proposal exists; writ petition closed with no costs.

Ramar Vs The District Collector — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.21529 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 06.08.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR

¶6

Writ Petition(MD)No.21529 of 2025

Ramar

..Petitioner

1.The District Collector Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

¶11

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer Revenue Divisional Office, Aruppukottai, Virudhunagar District.

¶12

3.The Tahsildar Taluk Office, Aruppukottai, Virudhunagar District.

¶13

..Respondents

¶14

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing respondents not to acquire the petitioner's land bearing 1)Survey No.378/8A and 2) Survey No. 378/8B situated by Velanoorani Revenue Village, Tiruchuzhi Taluk, Virudhunagar District without following due process of law / land acquisition proceedings.

¶15

1/4

¶16

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

¶17

W.P(MD)No.21529 of 2025

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Murugappan For Respondents : Mr.A.Baskaran Addl. Govt. Pleader

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents not to acquire the petitioner’s property comprised in Survey Nos. 378/8A and 378/8B, situated at Velanoorani Revenue Village, Tiruchuzhi Taluk, Virudhunagar District, without following due process of law.

¶21

When the writ petition was taken up for hearing, the learned Additional Government Pleader, who takes notice for the respondents, on the basis of written instructions from the third respondent in Na.Ka.A2/3066/2025 dated 05.08.2025, would submit that the third respondent has been wrongly described as the Tahsildar, Aruppukottai, whereas the representation of the petitioner was, in fact, submitted before the Tahsildar, Tiruchuzhi, Virudhunagar District. He further submitted, based on the instruction, that as on today, there is no proposal to acquire the land situated in the aforesaid survey numbers.

¶22

2/4

¶23

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

¶24

W.P(MD)No.21529 of 2025

¶25

3.The said statement made by the learned Additional Government Pleader is recorded, and accordingly, the writ petition stands closed. No costs.

¶26

06.08.2025

¶27

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet:Yes skn

¶28

To 1.The District Collector Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

¶29

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer Revenue Divisional Office, Aruppukottai, Virudhunagar District.

¶30

3.The Tahsildar Taluk Office, Aruppukottai, Virudhunagar District.

¶31

3/4

¶32

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

¶33

W.P(MD)No.21529 of 2025

¶34

S.SOUNTHAR, J.

¶35

skn

¶36

Writ Petition(MD)No.21529 of 2025

¶37

06.08.2025

¶38

4/4

¶39

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

Ramar v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramar v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jothi Vs The District Collector

R.Kumar Vs The Tahsildar

Ravichandran v Vs The District Collector

Veeraiyan Samiyappan Vs The Tahsildar

Selvaraj Vs The District Collector

Elangovan Vs The District Collector