A. Chandiran v. The District Collector, O/o The District Collector, Ranipet District
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
In view of the fact that no such road work has been carried out on the petitioner's land, this writ petition is dismissed
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Judgment
W.P.No.17539 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated: 09.05.2025CORAM :THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGANW.P.No.17539 of 2025& W.M.P.No.19890 of 2025A. Chandiran.... Petitionervs.
The District Collector, O/o The District Collector, Ranipet District.
The District Revenue Officer, District Revenue Office, Ranipet District.
The Tahsildar, Kalavai Taluk office, Ranipet District.
The Block Development Officer, Thimiri Block, Ranipet District.
The Head Surveyor, Kalavai Taluk office, Ranipet District. Page 1 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.17539 of 20256. The Inspector of Police, Thimiri Police Station, Ranipet District.
The Village Administrative Officer, Kaniyanur Village Administrative office, Ranipet District.
Mr.Gokul Raj, The Puthur Village President, Kalavai Taluk, Ranipet District.
Mr.Gugan, Ward Member of Puthur Village Panchayath, Kalavai Taluk, Ranipet District. ... RespondentsPrayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents 1 to 4 to take appropriate action on the petitioner's representation dated 12.11.2024, 03.03.2025 and to prevent the respondents 7, 8, and 9 from constructing a cement road on the petitioner's agricultural land in Survey No.114 A/1A2 in Kaniyanur Village, Ranipet District, and pass orders. For Petitioner: Mr.T.ElumalaiFor Respondents: Mr.S.Balamurugan, Government Advocate, for R1 to R5 & R7: Mr.S.Balaji, Government Advocate, for R6Page 2 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.17539 of 2025
Operative part
O R D E R The Writ Petition is filed seeking the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 4 to consider the representation dated 12.11.2024 and 03.03.2025 and to prevent the respondents 7, 8 & 9 from constructing any cement road on the petitioner's agricultural land in S.No.114A/1A2 in Kaniyanur Village, Ranipet District.2. When the writ petition is taken up for hearing, the Learned Government Advocates for the respondents, based on the written instructions in e.f.M2/2170/2024, dated. 05.2025, submitted that no laying of road work has been carried out on the petitioner's land as claimed by him.kDjhuh; jpU.re; jpud; j/ng. mapy; ehAL vd; gtu; jdJ kDtpy; Fwpg; gpl; Ls;sij Nghd;W fpuhk GQ;ir ru; Nt vz;.114A/1A2 ,y; Cuhl; rp epu; thfj; jpd; %yk; rpnkz;l;rhiy VJk;; mikf; ftpy; iy vd; gij fdpTld; njuptpj; Jf;nfhs; fpNwd;.Page 3 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.17539 of 20253. In view of the fact that no such road work has been carried out on the petitioner's land, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous Petition is closed. 09.05.2025Index: Yes/No.Neutral Citation: Yes/No.bsm/ariTo,1.The District Collector, O/o The District Collector, Ranipet District. 2. The District Revenue Officer, District Revenue Office, Ranipet District. 3. The Tahsildar, Kalavai Taluk office, Ranipet District. 4. The Block Development Officer, Thimiri Block, Ranipet District.5. The Head Surveyor, Kalavai Taluk office, Ranipet District. 6. The Inspector of Police, Thimiri Police Station, Ranipet District. 7. The Village Administrative Officer, Kaniyanur Village Administrative office, Ranipet District. 8. The Government Pleader, High Court, Madras. Page 4 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.17539 of 2025G. ARUL MURUGANari/bsm W.P.No.17539 of 2025 09.05.2025Page 5 of 5
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In view of the fact that no such road work has been carried out on the petitioner's land, this writ petition is dismissed
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.