Madras High CourtWP/34700/2023withdrawn dismissed

L.Gurusave v. The Land Commissioner

2023-12-20Honourable The Chief Justice,Honourable Mr Justice D.Bharatha Chakravarthy6 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 20.12.2023 CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY L.Gurusave ..

Petitioner Vs.

1. The Land Commissioner Land Administration Department 2nd Floor, Ezhilagam, Chepauk Chennai, Tamil Nadu - 600 005.

2. The District Collector Collectorate of Tirupathur Government Garden, Thirupathur District Thirupathur, Tamil Nadu - 635 601.

3. The District Revenue Officer Collectorate of Tirupathur Government Garden, Thirupathur District Thirupathur, Tamil Nadu - 635 601.

4. The District Registrar District Registrar Office - Tirupathur Tirupathur District, Collectorate of Tirupathur Tamil Nadu - 635 601.

5. The Sub Registrar Sub Registrar Office Natrampalli, Tirupathur Tamil Nadu - 635 852.

6. The Executive Officer Natrampalli Town Panchayat Natrampalli, Tirupathur Tamil Nadu - 635 852.

7. K.Raja

8. D.Samaraji ..

Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus, directing the 7th and 8th respondents not to proceed further in the matter of layout proposal in the nbame and style "Thangam Nagar" comprised in S.Nos.438, 439/1, 439/3 & 439/4 of Natrampalli Village and taluk and Tirupathur District and further directing respondents 1 to 6 not to process the application of the 7th and 8th respondents in the matter of laying out of plots at S.Nos.438, 439/1, 439/3 and 439/4 without following the conversion rules to convert agriculture land into that of housing plots. For the Petitioner : Mr.C.Johnson For the Respondents : Mr.P.Muthukumar State Government Pleader for R1 to R5

ORDER

(Made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice) Heard Mr.C.Johnson, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.P.Muthukumar, learned State Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 5.

2. The present writ petition is filed in the nature of a public interest litigation. We do not find any permission granted to the layout. The contention of the petitioner is that the layout should not be permitted. There is nothing on record to substantiate that the authorities have sanctioned the layout or that they are not following the procedure. The writ petition, it appears, is filed prematurely. It is only if permission is granted without following the procedure, then the aggrieved party can have a cause of action.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at this stage, seeks leave to withdraw the writ petition.

4. The writ petition, as such, stands dismissed as withdrawn. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, W.M.P.No.34662 of 2023 is closed.

(S.V.G., CJ.) (D.B.C., J.) 20.12.2023 Index :

Yes/No :

Yes/No drm