Madras High CourtWP/31189/2004dismissed for nonprosecution

Narayanasamy v. The Secretary, Fisheries

2019-01-04Honourable Mr Justice S.M. Subramaniam2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED 04-01-2019

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM W.P.No.31189 of 2004 Narayanasamy ... Petitioner ..Vs..

1. The Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. By its Secretary, Fisheries Department, Fort St. George, Chennai- 600 009

2. The District Collector, Villupuram District.

3. The Tehsildar Office of The Tahsildar, Tindivanam, Villupuram District.

4. The Village Administrative Officer, Urani Village, Tindivanam Taluk, Villupuram District.

5. The Revenue Inspector, Marakkanam Pirka Villupuram District.

... Respondents PRAYER : Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned notice issued under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act 1905 on 28.09.2004 by the Tahsildar, Tindivanam the 3rd respondent herein quash the same and direct the respondents 2, 3 and 5 i.e., the District Collector Villupuram, the Tahsildar, Tindivanam, The Revenue Inspector, Marakkanam Pirka, their subordinates or any person acting under them not to take any coercive steps to evict the petitioner from the land under the petitioner's occupation in Survey No.5-5,1/- to an extent of 0205, 1345 acre at 216, Urani Village, Tindivanam Taluk, Villupuram District and consequently directing the 2nd respondent to grant lease in favour of the petitioner in respect of the aforesaid land on the basis of the petitioner's application dated 06.08.2003 submitted to the 2nd respondent.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

For Petitioner : No Appearance For Respondents : Mr.R. Janki AGP

O R D E R

The writ petition was listed for hearing on 03.01.2019. None appeared for the writ petitioner. Thus, the case was directed to be listed on 04.01.2019 under the caption "For Dismissal".

2. When the matter is taken up for hearing today i.e., on 04.01.2019, there is no representation on behalf of the writ petitioner. Thus, it is to be construed that the writ petitioner is not interested in pursuing the matter.

3. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed for nonprosecution. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- Deputy Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar ska To,