Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
For the foregoing reasons, this Writ Petition is disposed of by directing the 3rd respondent to pass final orders on merits and in accordance with law on the petitioner’s representation dated 23
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Judgment
WP No. 15554 of 2026IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 21-04-2026CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSEWP No. 15554 of 2026 Kumar..Petitioner(s)Vs1.The District CollectorDharmapuri District.
The Revenue Divisional officerDharmapuri.
The TashildharNallampalli, Dharmapuri District.
Latha..Respondent(s)PRAYER – This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1-3 Respondents to dispose of petition dated 23.06.2025 for action against the 4th Respondent for blocking the pathway in Government Kallankuthu Porampokku Land in Errapayanahalli Village Survey No.113 an extent of Property over 1.31.0 Ares. For Petitioner(s):Mr.M.RaviFor Respondent(s):Mr.C.Jayaprakash, Government Advocate (For R1 to R3)__________Page1 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 15554 of 2026
O R D E RThis Writ Petition has been filed to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to dispose of the petitioner’s representation dated 23.06.2025 by taking action against the 4th respondent for blocking the pathway in “Government Kallankuthu Porampokku land” in Errapayanahalli Village, comprised in Survey No.113 to an extent of property over 1.31.0 Ares. According to the petitioner, the 4th respondent is blocking the pathway in the aforesaid property. The petitioner had given a representation on 23.06.2025 to the respondents 1 to 3 for the aforesaid purpose. Since the same has not been considered, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition. 2. Mr.C.Jayaprakash, learned Government Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3. No prejudice would be caused to the parties if a direction is issued to the 3rd respondent to pass final orders on merits and in accordance with law on the petitioner’s representation after hearing the objections of the 4th respondent, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.
Operative part
This Court is not expressing any opinion on the merits of the petitioner’s representation. Since no adverse orders are passed as against the 4th respondent, notice to the 4th respondent is dispensed with by this Court in this Writ Petition. __________Page2 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 15554 of 20263.For the foregoing reasons, this Writ Petition is disposed of by directing the 3rd respondent to pass final orders on merits and in accordance with law on the petitioner’s representation dated 23.06.2025, seeking to take action against the 4th respondent for the alleged blocking of the pathway in “Government Kallankuthu Porampokkku Land” in Errapayanahalli Village, comprised in Survey No.113 to an extent of property over 1.31.0 Ares, after giving due consideration to the supporting documents filed by the petitioner and after hearing the objections of the 4th respondent and any other third party whom the 3rd respondent deem fit to enquire, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
However, there shall be no order as to costs. 21-04-2026Index: Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderNeutral Citation: Yes/NoGSATo1.The District CollectorDharmapuri District. 2. The Revenue Divisional officerDharmapuri. 3. The TashildharNallampalli, Dharmapuri District.__________Page3 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 15554 of 2026ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.GSAWP No. 15554 of 202621-04-2026__________Page4 of 4
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: For the foregoing reasons, this Writ Petition is disposed of by directing the 3rd respondent to pass final orders on merits and in accordance with law on the petitioner’s representation dated 23
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
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.