V.Arunselvaraj v. The Thasildhar, Thiruchuli
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
The writ petition is disposed of with the above observations
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. In view of the same, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, the respondents 1 and 2 are directed to consider the online application of the petitioner dated 07.06.2025 and pass final orders on its own merits and in accordance with…
Judgment
W.P.(MD)No.20361 of 2025 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED: 25.07.2025CORAM:THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SOUNTHARW.P.(MD).No.20361 of 2025V.Arunselvaraj... PetitionerVs.
The Thasildhar, Thiruchuli Taluk, Virudhunagar District.
The Taluk Surveyor, Thiruchuli Taluk, Virudhunagar District.
The Inspector of Police, Thiruchuli Police Station, Virudhunagar District. ... RespondentsPrayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to Survey No.565/14B2 having an extent of 01.35 ares situated at Keezharatha Street, Thiruchuli Village, Thiruchuli Taluk, Virudhunagar District by obtaining adequate police protection from the 3rd respondent police.1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.20361 of 2025 For Petitioner: Mr.C.PrithivirajFor R1 and R2: Mr.A.Baskaran Additional Government PleaderFor R3: Mr.M.Vaikkam Karunanithi Government Advocate (Crl. Side)ORDERThe petitioner herein seeks a direction to the respondents to survey the property situated in Survey No.565/14B2 at Keezharatha Street, Thiruchuli Village, Thiruchuli Taluk, Virudhunagar District.2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.A.Baskaran, learned Additional Government Pleader who takes notice for the respondents 1 & 2 and Mr.M.Vaikkam Karunanithi, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) who takes notice for the 3rd respondent. 3. By consent of both the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.20361 of 2025 4. According to the petitioner, he has purchased the subject property under a registered Sale Deed dated 29.08.2024. The Patta for the subject property was issued in the name of the petitioner in Patta No.2399. The petitioner submitted an online application 07.06.2025 in kD vz;:2025/N123/26/005468, seeking survey of the property, however, the same has not been considered till date. Hence, the petitioner has come before this Court.
The learned Additional Government Pleader, who takes notice for the respondents 1 and 2 would submit that the online application submitted by the petitioner dated 07.06.2025 will be considered within the time stipulated by this Court.
Operative part
In view of the same, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, the respondents 1 and 2 are directed to consider the online application of the petitioner dated 07.06.2025 and pass final orders on its own merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after issuing notice to the petitioner, neighboring land owners and other interested parties. 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.20361 of 2025 7. The writ petition is disposed of with the above observations. No costs. 25.07.2025NCC :yes/NoIndex :yes/NoInternet:yes/Norgm4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.20361 of 2025 To1. The Thasildhar, Thiruchuli Taluk, Virudhunagar District.2. The Taluk Surveyor, Thiruchuli Taluk, Virudhunagar District.3. The Inspector of Police, Thiruchuli Police Station, Virudhunagar District. 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.20361 of 2025 S.SOUNTHAR , J. rgmW.P.(MD).No.20361 of 202525.07.20256/6
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The writ petition is disposed of with the above observations
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.