S.Pandi v. The Special Thasildar
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
Recording the same, the Writ Petition is dismissed, as withdrawn, with liberty to the petitioner to move an Arbitration O
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 s. 34
Judgment
W.P.(MD) No.18319 of 2025BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED : 07.07.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHARW.P.(MD) No.18319 of 2025S.Pandi...Petitioner Vs1 The District Collector, Dindigul Collectorate Office, Dindigul District.2 The Competent Authority and Special District Revenue Officer, LA-NH, 785, 785E & 85(New ), Madurai.3 The Special Thasildar, Land Acquisition (NHAI), No.785, Block II, Natham , Dindigul District.4 The Project Director, National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), Madurai....RespondentsPRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the ____________Page 1 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.18319 of 2025records relating to the impugned Order issued by the 1st Respondent vide Proceedings Na.Ka.No.21561/2021/E2, dated 14.03.2025, and consequently direct the 1st respondent to conduct proper enquiry and to determine adequate compensation as per the existing rate.
Operative part
For Petitioner :Mr.G.SailendrababuFor Respondents1 to 3 : Mr.D.S.Nedunchezian, Govt. Advocate. For Respondent4 : Mr.P.KarthikORDERLearned counsel for the petitioner seeks to withdraw the Writ Petition, with liberty to challenge the impugned order by way of an Arbitration O.P., under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. He also made an endorsement in the court bundle to that effect.2. Recording the same, the Writ Petition is dismissed, as withdrawn, with liberty to the petitioner to move an Arbitration O.P., under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, subject to law of limitation. The petitioner is entitled to exclude the time taken before this Court in prosecuting this Writ Petition (i.e., from 01.07.2025 till date of receipt of this order). No costs. 07.07.2025____________Page 2 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.18319 of 2025NCC :Yes / NoIndex :Yes / NoInternet: Yes / NodixitTo:1 The District Collector, Dindigul Collectorate Office, Dindigul District.2 The Competent Authority and Special District Revenue Officer, LA-NH, 785, 785E & 85(New ), Madurai.3 The Special Thasildar, Land Acquisition (NHAI), No.785, Block II, Natham , Dindigul District.4 The Project Director, National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), Madurai.____________Page 3 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.18319 of 2025S.SOUNTHAR, J.dixitW.P.(MD) No.18319 of 202507.07.2025____________Page 4 of 4
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Recording the same, the Writ Petition is dismissed, as withdrawn, with liberty to the petitioner to move an Arbitration O
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — s. 34.
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.