Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
- Bench
- G R SWAMINATHAN, R POORNIMA
Outcome
Dismissed
This Writ Petition is dismissed accordingly
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. Mohammed Dawood7.Sudhakaran ... Respondents1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.15330 of 2016 Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the third respondent from marking any entry to an extent of 1631.25 of land in Survey No.388/1A situated…
Judgment
W.P(MD)No.15330 of 2016BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 24.03.2026CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN ANDTHE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMAW.P(MD)No.15330 of 20161.P.Ravichandran2.R.Komathi ... PetitionersVs.
The District Collector, District Collector Campus, Ramanathapuram District.
The Revenue Divisonal Officer, Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ramanathapuram District.
The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District.
The Village Administrative Officer, Pattinamkathan Group, Ramanathapuram Taluk, Ramanathapuram District.
The Commissioner, Mandapam Union, Ramanathapuram District.
Operative part
Mohammed Dawood7.Sudhakaran ... Respondents1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.15330 of 2016 Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the third respondent from marking any entry to an extent of 1631.25 of land in Survey No.388/1A situated at Pattinamkathan Village, Ramanathapuram Taluk as common pathway in the Revenue Records in view of the petitioner's representation 18.07.2016. For Petitioners: Mr.D.SenthilFor Respondents: Mr.G.V.Vairam Santhosh Additional Government Advocate for R.1 to R.5 Mr.C.Jeyaprakash for R.6 & R.7 ORDER(Order of the Court was made by G.R.Swaminathan J.)In view of the order dated 24.03.2026 in W.P(MD)No.26108 of 2019, this Writ Petition has become infructuous. 2. This Writ Petition is dismissed accordingly. No costs. [G.R.S., J.] [R.P, J.] 24.03.2026 2/4 NCC : Yes / NoIndex : Yes / NoInternet : Yes/ NoMGA2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.15330 of 2016To1.The District Collector, District Collector Campus, Ramanathapuram District. 2. The Revenue Divisonal Officer, Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ramanathapuram District. 3. The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District. 4. The Village Administrative Officer, Pattinamkathan Group, Ramanathapuram Taluk, Ramanathapuram District. 5. The Commissioner, Mandapam Union, Ramanathapuram District.3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.15330 of 2016 G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.AND R.POORNIMA , J. MGAW.P(MD)No.15330 of 201624.03.2026 2/44/4
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: This Writ Petition is dismissed accordingly
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.