Seetharaman Srinivasan Vs The Principal Secretary

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2 nd respondent to consider and pass orders on the petitioner’s representation dated 25.09.2025 with reference and pursuance of G.O.(MS).No.247 Housing and Urban Development (LA-2(2)) Department, dated 23.12.2024 of the 1 st

¶16

1/5

¶17

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

¶18

W.P.No.13655 of 2026

¶19

respondent and its further Specific Directive Letter in No:11825193/L.A.1(1)/2025, dated 15.10.2025 to the 2 nd respondent.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Rajasekaran For Respondents : Mr.D.Ravichander, Special Government Pleader, for R1 : Mr.A.M.Ravindranath Jeyapal, Standing Counsel for RR-2 and 3

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This Writ Petition is filed to direct the second respondent to

¶23

withdraw the land acquisition over the property, more fully disclosed in the affidavit filed in support of this Writ Petition, which was earlier owned by the petitioner.

¶24

The petitioner relies upon G.O.(Ms.) No.247, Housing and

¶25

Urban Development (LA-2(2)) Department, dated 23.12.2024 of the first respondent and its further specific directive letter, dated 15.10.2025 sent to the second respondent in support of the petitioner’s representation seeking for withdrawal of the land acquisition. Since the representation of the petitioner, dated 25.09.2025 seeking for withdrawal of the land acquisition

¶26

has not been considered, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition.

¶27

2/5

¶28

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

¶29

W.P.No.13655 of 2026

¶30

Mr.D.Ravichander, learned Special Government Pleader accepts notice on behalf of the first respondent. Mr.A.M.Ravindranath Jeyapal, learned Standing Counsel accepts notice on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶31

On instructions, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 would submit that the representation of the petitioner will be considered by the second respondent on merits and in accordance with law within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶32

This Court is not expressing any opinion on the merits of the petitioner’s representation. No prejudice will be caused to the respondents if the petitioner’s representation is considered on merits and in accordance with law within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶33

For the foregoing reasons, this Court directs the second respondent to pass final orders on merits and in accordance with law on the petitioner’s representation, dated 25.09.2025 seeking for withdrawal of the

¶34

land acquisition of the property, more fully disclosed in the affidavit filed 3/5

¶35

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

¶36

W.P.No.13655 of 2026

¶37

in support of this Writ Petition, which was earlier owned by the petitioner after giving due consideration to the G.O.(Ms.) No.247, Housing and Urban Development (LA-2(2)) Department, dated 23.12.2024 and the further directive letter, dated 15.10.2025 within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶38