Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

K.Govindarajan Vs The District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

Home
Madras HC
2026
K.Govindarajan Vs The District CollectorK.Govindarajan v. The District Collector

Dismissed¶23

K.Govindarajan v. The District Collector

Madras HC5 Mar 2026WP/35039/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Short, non-speaking Madras High Court order dismissing a writ petition as infructuous on the strength of counsel's submission and endorsement. Keywords: infructuous writ petition; dismissal; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed; Writ of Mandamus; Article 226 Constitution of India; fencing; S.No.28; Padi Village; Ambattur Taluk; Tahsildar Ambattur; District Collector Chennai; Tamil Nadu Urban Habitat Development Board; Commissioner of Land Administration; statutory appeal dated 10.08.2022; communication Sa.Mu.No.002/A1/2022 dated 17.11.2022; WP No. 35039 of 2022; W.M.P.No.34482 of 2022; Justice Krishnan Ramasamy; dated 05-03-2026.

What did the court decide?

On the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, coupled with her endorsement that the prayer in the writ petition had become infructuous, the Court dismissed the writ petition as infructuous, awarding no costs. The merits of the fencing dispute were not adjudicated.

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether a Writ of Mandamus could issue forbearing the respondents from putting up fencing relating to the land comprised in S.No.28, Padi Village, Ambattur Taluk, Chennai, in terms of the communication Sa.Mu.No.002/A1/2022 dated 17.11.2022 issued by the third respondent, pending the statutory appeal dated 10.08.2022 filed by the petitioner before the fourth respondent.

Ratio / Principle

On the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, coupled with her endorsement that the prayer in the writ petition had become infructuous, the Court dismissed the writ petition as infructuous, awarding no costs. The merits of the fencing dispute were not adjudicated.

Key takeaways

In consequence of the dismissal, the connected miscellaneous petition (W.M.P.No.34482 of 2022) was closed.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Krishnan Ramasamy, J.), WP No. 35039 of 2022, decided 05-03-2026: The petitioner had sought a Writ of Mandamus under Article 226 forbearing the respondents from putting up fencing relating to land in S.No.28, Padi Village, Ambattur Taluk, Chennai, in terms of communication Sa.Mu.No.002/A1/2022 dated 17.11.2022 of the Tahsildar, Ambattur, pending a statutory appeal dated 10.08.2022 before the Commissioner of Land Administration. At hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the prayer had become infructuous and made an endorsement to that effect in the case bundle. The Court accordingly dismissed the writ petition as infructuous with no costs and closed the connected W.M.P.No.34482 of 2022. No merits were adjudicated and no precedent was cited.

A

WP No. 35039 of 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 05-03-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY WP No. 35039 of 2022 and W.M.P.No.34482 of 2022

K.Govindarajan

..Petitioner(s)

Vs

The District Collector, Office of Collectorate of Chennai, Singaravelan maaligai, Rajaji Salai, Chennai – 600 001.

Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Urban Habitat Development Board, No.5, Kamarajar Salai, Chepauk, (Near Vivekananda House), Chennai – 600 005.

The Tahsildar, Ambattur Taluk, Ambattur,

Chennai – 600 053.

The Commissioner of Land Administration, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.

..Respondent(s)

Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents herein in any manner putting up fencing so far it relates to the land comprised in S.No.28 situated at Padi Village, Ambattur Taluk, Chennai in terms of the communication made in Sa.Mu.No.002/A1/2022 dated 17.11.2022 issued by the

__________ Page1 of 4

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

WP No. 35039 of 2022

third respondent pending the statutory appeal dated 10.08.2022 filed by the petitioenr before the 4^th respondent.

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.G.Ethirajulu For Respondent(s) : Mr.T.K.Saravanan, AGP for R1, 3 & 4 Mr.S.Karthikeyan, Standing Counsel for R2

ORDER

When the matter was taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the prayer in this writ petition has become infructuous and she has also made an endorsement to that effect in the case bundle.

Considering the submission coupled with an endorsement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

05-03-2026

Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No

VM

__________ Page2 of 4

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

WP No. 35039 of 2022

To:

The District Collector, Office of Collectorate of Chennai, Singaravelan Maaligai, Rajaji Salai, Chennai – 600 001.

Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Urban Habitat Development Board, No.5, Kamarajar Salai, Chepauk, (Near Vivekananda House), Chennai – 600 005.

The Tahsildar, Ambattur Taluk, Ambattur, Chennai – 600 053.

The Commissioner of Land Administration, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.

__________ Page3 of 4

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

WP No. 35039 of 2022

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.

VM

WP No. 35039 of 2022

05-03-2026

__________ Page4 of 4

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

Issues for consideration

1 issue framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether a Writ of Mandamus could issue forbearing the respondents from putting up fencing relating to the land comprised in S.No.28, Padi Village, Ambattur Taluk, Chennai, in terms of the communication Sa.Mu.No.002/A1/2022 dated 17.11.2022 issued by the third respondent, pending the statutory appeal dated 10.08.2022 filed by the petitioner before the fourth respondent.medium confidence¶15

Statutes considered

1 provisions across 1 enactments

AI extract

Constitution of IndiaArticle 226¶15

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Prior proceeding
A statutory appeal dated 10.08.2022 filed by the petitioner before the fourth respondent (Commissioner of Land Administration); the writ petition sought restraint on fencing pending that appeal.¶19
Prior proceeding
Communication Sa.Mu.No.002/A1/2022 dated 17.11.2022 issued by the third respondent, in terms of which the fencing that the writ sought to restrain was to relate.¶15

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
K.Govindarajan¶6
Mr.G.Ethirajulu
respondent
The District Collector, Office of Collectorate of Chennai, Singaravelan maaligai, Rajaji Salai, Chennai - 600 001.¶9
Mr.T.K.Saravanan
respondent
Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Urban Habitat Development Board, No.5, Kamarajar Salai, Chepauk, (Near Vivekananda House), Chennai - 600 005.¶10
Mr.S.Karthikeyan
respondent
The Tahsildar, Ambattur Taluk, Ambattur, Chennai - 600 053.¶11
Mr.T.K.Saravanan
respondent
The Commissioner of Land Administration, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.¶13
Mr.T.K.Saravanan

Coram

AI extract

KRISHNAN RAMASAMYauthor¶5

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Madras HC
Decided on: 5 Mar 2026 · March
Registered: 26 Dec 2022
Case no.: WP/35039/2022
CNR: HCMA012129382022
Topic: Writ and Judicial Review
Bench: Krishnan Ramasamy
Disposal: DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS
Case type: WP

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from Krishnan Ramasamy

Vasantha alias vasanthi Vs The Tahsildar
4 Mar 2026
R.Sathyanarayanamurthy Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu
4 Mar 2026
M.Shanmugasundaram Vs the Special Officer / Additional Chief Secretary /
4 Mar 2026
G.Balaji Vs The District Collector
5 Mar 2026
Subramani Vs The Revenue Divisional officer
5 Mar 2026
D.Rajendran Vs District Collector
5 Mar 2026

Cite this judgement

K.Govindarajan v. The District Collector, WP/35039/2022 (MAD), decided on 5 March 2026.

The Madras High Court publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes1

Constitution of IndiaArticle 226

View all statutes

Procedural history2

A statutory appeal dated 10.08.2022 filed by the petitioner before the fourth respondent (Commissioner of Land Administration); the writ petition sought restraint on fencing pending that appeal.
Communication Sa.Mu.No.002/A1/2022 dated 17.11.2022 issued by the third respondent, in terms of which the fencing that the writ sought to restrain was to relate.

View full history

Bench / Coram

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY

Parties & counsel