Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
- Bench
- M SUNDAR, K GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI
Outcome
Withdrawn
In the light of the narrative thus far, captioned main WP and captioned WMP thereat are disposed of as withdrawn/closed albeit with preservation of rights and contentions of writ petitioner as sought for
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. In the light of the narrative thus far, captioned main WP and captioned WMP thereat are disposed of as withdrawn/closed albeit with preservation of rights and contentions of writ petitioner as sought for. There shall be no order as to costs. (M.S., J.) (K.G.T.…
Judgment
W.P. No.3757 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 05.02.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR andTHE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE K. GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADIW.P. No.3757 of 2025 and W.M.P. No.4167 of 2025A.P. ShanmugamPetitionervs.
The Commissioner of Land AdministrationChepaukChennai2.The District CollectorCollectorate BuildingsNamakkal3.The District Revenue OfficerCollectorate BuildingsNamakkal District4.The Revenue Divisional OfficerTiruchengode5.The TahsildarParamathi Velur TalukNamakkal District6.The Revenue Inspector JedarpalayamParamathi – Velur TalukNamakkal DistrictRespondentsPage Nos.1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.3757 of 2025 Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the fifth respondent made in notice dated 23.12.2024 received by the petitioner on 28.12.2024 and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's applications dated 17.10.2024 and 26.12.2024 for grant of patta by way of transfer of land to an extent of 3.5 cents in the light of G.O.Ms.No.201 dated 10.05.2022 and the proceedings of the second respondent made in proceedings in Na.Ka.No.1826/2024/03 dated 18.11.2024.For petitionerMr. N. UmapathiORDER[made by M.SUNDAR, J.]After some arguments, Mr. N. Umapathy, learned counsel on record for writ petitioner, sought leave of this Court to withdraw the captioned main 'writ petition' (hereinafter 'WP' for the sake of brevity) and the captioned 'writ miscellaneous petition' (hereinafter 'WMP' for the sake of brevity) thereat but made a request to preserve all the rights and contentions of writ petitioner to prefer a statutory appeal under Section 10 of 'the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (Tamil Nadu Act III of 1905)' (for brevity 'said 1905 Act') together with a stay petition under Section 10B thereat, saying so, learned counsel Page Nos.2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.3757 of 2025has made an endorsement in the case file and a scanned reproduction of the same is as follows:
Request acceded to.
Operative part
In the light of the narrative thus far, captioned main WP and captioned WMP thereat are disposed of as withdrawn/closed albeit with preservation of rights and contentions of writ petitioner as sought for. There shall be no order as to costs. (M.S., J.) (K.G.T., J.)05.02.2025cadIndex: Yes/NoNC:Yes/NoPage Nos.3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.3757 of 2025M.SUNDAR, J.andK. GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.cadTo1.The Commissioner of Land AdministrationChepaukChennai2.The District CollectorCollectorate BuildingsNamakkal3.The District Revenue OfficerCollectorate BuildingsNamakkal District4.The Revenue Divisional OfficerTiruchengode5.The TahsildarParamathi Velur TalukNamakkal District6.The Revenue Inspector JedarpalayamParamathi – Velur TalukNamakkal DistrictW.P. No.3757 of 202505.02.2025Page Nos.4/4
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In the light of the narrative thus far, captioned main WP and captioned WMP thereat are disposed of as withdrawn/closed albeit with preservation of rights and contentions of writ petitioner as sought for
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905; Tamil Nadu Act.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.