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.

Sivaraj Vs the District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

Home
Madras HC
2026
Sivaraj Vs the District CollectorSivaraj v. the District Collector

Dismissed¶23

Sivaraj v. the District Collector

Madras HC12 Jan 2026WP/48308/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court; WP No. 48308 of 2025; decided 12-01-2026; Abdul Quddhose, J.; writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; attachment notice dated 21.11.2025 (Na.Ka. No.4854/ 2023/ A3) by Tahsildar, Palakkad Taluk, Dharmapuri District; challenge by Sivaraj against District Collector Dharmapuri, Tahsildar, Superintendent of Prisons Central Prison Salem, and fourth respondent Latha; interim order dated 10.12.2025 deferring sale of subject property by 30 days; unconditional undertaking to pay dues of fourth respondent by 09.01.2026; non-compliance reported by Government Advocate C.Jayaprakash; no further time granted; writ petition dismissed; no costs; W.M.P.No.53955 of 2025 closed.

What did the court decide?

No further time could be granted to the petitioner because the undertaking given on 10.12.2025 was unconditional; therefore the question of granting further time did not arise.

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the records pertaining to the attachment notice dated 21.11.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent should be called for and the notice quashed, in light of the petitioner's non-compliance with the unconditional undertaking recorded in this Court's order dated 10.12.2025.

Court's answer

No further time could be granted to the petitioner because the undertaking given on 10.12.2025 was unconditional; therefore the question of granting further time did not arise.

Ratio / Principle

As the unconditional undertaking/order dated 10.12.2025 was not complied with, the writ petition stands dismissed, with no costs, and W.M.P.No.53955 of 2025 is closed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Abdul Quddhose, J.) dismissed a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash an attachment notice dated 21.11.2025 passed by the Tahsildar, Palakkad Taluk, Dharmapuri District (Na.Ka. No.4854/ 2023/ A3). By its earlier order dated 10.12.2025, the Court had directed respondents 1 to 3 to defer the sale of the subject property for 30 days to enable the petitioner to settle the dues of the fourth respondent on or before 09.01.2026, making clear that failure to pay would result in automatic dismissal of the writ petition. On 12.01.2026 the Government Advocate reported, and petitioner's counsel confirmed, that the unconditional undertaking had not been obeyed/fulfilled. Holding that the undertaking was unconditional and that the question of granting further time did not arise, the Court dismissed the writ petition, awarded no costs, and closed W.M.P.No.53955 of 2025.

A

WP No. 48308 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 12-01-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE WP No. 48308 of 2025

Sivaraj

..Petitioner(s)

Vs

The District Collector Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri.

A.Ashok Kumar M.A., B.L., Tahsildar, Palakkad Taluk, Dharmapuri District.

The Superintendent Of Prisons, Central Prison, Salem.

4. Latha

..Respondent(s)

Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to call for the records from the office of the 2nd respondent pertaining to the attachment notice passed by the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka. No.4854/ 2023/ A3 dated 21.11.2025 and quash the same

For Petitioner(s): MR.R.GANESAN For Respondent(s): MR.C.JAYAPRAKASH GOVT ADVOCATE (R1 to R3)

__________Page 1 of 4

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

WP No. 48308 of 2025

ORDER

This Court, vide its order dated 10.12.2025, directed the respondents 1 to

3 to defer the sale of the subject property for a period of 30 days to enable the petitioner to settle the dues of the fourth respondent on or before 09.01.2026, and in the said order, it was made clear that if the payment is not made on or before 09.01.2026, the writ petition shall stand automatically dismissed.

It is now brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 that the unconditional undertaking given by the petitioner as stated supra has not been obeyed/fulfilled. The same is also confirmed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, who would also submit that if some more time is granted, the petitioner will be in a position to pay the unconditional amount as stipulated by this Court in its order dated 10.12.2025.

The question of granting further time does not arise, as the undertaking given by the petitioner on 10.12.2025 was an unconditional undertaking. Since the unconditional order has not been complied with as recorded in this court’s order dated 10.12.2025, this writ petition stands dismissed. No Costs. W.M.P.No.53955 of 2025 is closed.

12-01-2026

Neutral Citation: Yes/No

RKM

__________Page 2 of 4

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

WP No. 48308 of 2025

To

The District Collector, Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri.

Tahsildar, Palakkad Taluk, Dharmapuri District.

The Superintendent Of PrisonsCentral Prison,

Salem.

__________Page 3 of 4

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

WP No. 48308 of 2025

ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.

RKM

WP No. 48308 of 2025

12-01-2026

__________Page 4 of 4

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

Issues for consideration

1 issue framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the records pertaining to the attachment notice dated 21.11.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent should be called for and the notice quashed, in light of the petitioner's non-compliance with the unconditional undertaking recorded in this Court's order dated 10.12.2025.¶23
The court held
No further time could be granted to the petitioner because the undertaking given on 10.12.2025 was unconditional; therefore the question of granting further time did not arise.ratio¶23

Statutes considered

1 provisions across 1 enactments

AI extract

Constitution of IndiaArticle 226¶14

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Attachment notice passed by the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka. No.4854/ 2023/ A3 dated 21.11.2025, which the writ petition sought to have called for and quashed.¶14
2nd respondent (Tahsildar, Palakkad Taluk, Dharmapuri District) · 21.11.2025
Prior proceeding
By order dated 10.12.2025, this Court directed respondents 1 to 3 to defer the sale of the subject property for 30 days to enable the petitioner to settle the dues of the fourth respondent on or before 09.01.2026, with an automatic dismissal clause if payment was not made by that date.¶21
Prior proceeding
The learned Government Advocate informed the Court, and petitioner's counsel confirmed, that the unconditional undertaking given by the petitioner in terms of the order dated 10.12.2025 had not been obeyed/fulfilled.¶22

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
Sivaraj¶6
MR.R.GANESAN
respondent
The District Collector Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri.¶9
MR.C.JAYAPRAKASH
respondent
A.Ashok Kumar M.A., B.L., Tahsildar, Palakkad Taluk, Dharmapuri District.¶10
MR.C.JAYAPRAKASH
respondent
The Superintendent Of Prisons, Central Prison, Salem.¶11
MR.C.JAYAPRAKASH
respondent
Latha¶12

Coram

AI extract

Abdul Quddhoseauthor¶5

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Madras HC
Decided on: 12 Jan 2026 · January
Registered: 8 Dec 2025
Case no.: WP/48308/2025
CNR: HCMA013013932025
Topic: Writ and Judicial Review
Bench: Abdul Quddhose
Disposal: DISMISSED
Case type: WP

Similar cases

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

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from Abdul Quddhose

M/S.Ashaz Impex Vs the Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Import)
9 Jan 2026
S.Anbazhagan Vs The Principal Secretary to Government
9 Jan 2026
Vijayakumar.G Vs the District Collector
9 Jan 2026
Beula @ Biyula Vs The District collector
12 Jan 2026
M.Krishnan Vs The Revenue Divisional officer
12 Jan 2026
S.Rathanam Vs the Tashildar
12 Jan 2026

Cite this judgement

Sivaraj v. the District Collector, WP/48308/2025 (MAD), decided on 12 January 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 history3

Attachment notice passed by the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka. No.4854/ 2023/ A3 dated 21.11.2025, which the writ petition sought to have called for and quashed.2nd respondent (Tahsildar, Palakkad Taluk, Dharmapuri District) · 21.11.2025
By order dated 10.12.2025, this Court directed respondents 1 to 3 to defer the sale of the subject property for 30 days to enable the petitioner to settle the dues of the fourth respondent on or before 09.01.2026, with an automatic dismissal clause if payment was not made by that date.
The learned Government Advocate informed the Court, and petitioner's counsel confirmed, that the unconditional undertaking given by the petitioner in terms of the order dated 10.12.2025 had not been obeyed/fulfilled.

View full history

Bench / Coram

Abdul Quddhose

Parties & counsel