Madras High CourtWP/36251/2024withdrawn dismissed

M.Kandhasamy v. The District Collector

2024-12-03Honourable Mr Justice M. Sundar,Honourable Mr.Justice K.Rajasekar7 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 03.12.2024 Coram THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR M.Kandhasamy S/o.Muthuvel .. Petitioner vs

1. The District Collector O/o.the Collectorate Ariyalur District

2. The District Revenue Officer O/o.The District Revenue Officer Ariyalur, Ariyalur District

3. The Revenue Divisional officer O/o.the Revenue Divisional Officer Udaiyarpalayam, Ariyalur District

4. The Tahsildar O/o.the Tahsildar

Ariyalur Taluk, Ariyalur District

5. The Tahsildar O/o.the Tahsildar Sendurai Taluk, Ariyalur District - 621 714

6. The Revenue Inspector O/o.the Revenue Inspector Ariyalur, Ariyalur District

7. The Block Development Officer O/o.the Block Development Officer Sendurai, Ariyalur District

8. Subramaniayan S/o.Thangasamy .. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 5 to initiate appropriate action to remove the encroachments in land comprised in Pottaveli Village S.No.84/1B2 and 84/1B3, situated at Ariyalur Taluk and District and also land comprised in Nakkambadi Village, S.No.159, situated at Sendurai Taluk, Ariyalur District, on the basis of the petitioner's representations dated 28.08.2023 and 27.06.2024. For Petitioner :

Mr.S.Viswanathan For Respondents :

Mr.T.K.Saravanan Govt. Advocate for R1 to R6

Ms.P.Rajarajeswari Government Advocate for R7

O R D E R

(Order of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR, J.) When the matter was taken up, it came to light that an order made in a writ petition referred to by the writ petitioner in his representation dated 27.06.2024 has not been annexed to the typed-set of papers.

2. We ferreted out the order i.e., order dated 27.04.2023 in W.P (MD) No.10297 of 2023 and WMP thereat from the ECOURTS website. On a perusal of the order we find that in paragraph 5, Hon'ble Division Bench has observed that the impugned order in that matter is in contravention of another order, namely order dated 28.03.2023 in W.P.No.6676 of 2023 etc., batch. This order has also not been annexed in the typed-set of papers. Learned counsel fairly submitted that though

he has perused the aforementioned order dated 27.04.2023 in W.P (MD) No.10297 of 2023, he has not perused the order dated 28.03.2023 in W.P.No.6676 of 2023 etc., batch.

3. Faced with the above situation, learned counsel sought leave of this Court to withdraw the captioned writ petition but made a plea to preserve the rights of the writ petitioner to come up with an appropriate / suitable writ petition on the same issue after perusing the aforementioned order/s and after duly annexing the same in the typed-set of papers. Request acceded to.

4. Endorsement in the case file is as follows:

In the light of the narrative thus far, captioned writ petition is disposed of as closed / withdrawn albeit with preservation of rights in the aforesaid manner. Considering the fair nature in which the submissions were made, we refrain ourselves from imposing costs. [M.S., J] [K.R.S., J] 03.12.2024 gpa