A. Murugesan Vs. The District Collector, Dindigul and Others

A. Murugesan vs The District Collector, Dindigul and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Madurai Decided May 19, 2016

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1190921

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1190921
Court: Chennai Madurai High Court
Judge: M.V. Muralidaran
Decided On: May 19, 2016
Case Number: W.P.(MD) No. 9386 of 2016 & WMP(MD).Nos. 7441 & 7442 of 2016
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

A. Murugesan

Respondent

The District Collector, Dindigul and Others

Excerpt

.....amman and sri bhagavathi amman temple, nandavanapatti, dindigul district from 24.05.2016 to 26.05.2016, as mentioned in his representation dated 26.03.2016.2. heard mr.s.sukumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and mr. aayiram k. selvakumar, learned government advocate appearing for the respondents.3. the petitioner challenges the impugned order dated 15.04.2016, passed by the second respondent, stating that usually, the petitioner's community alone conduct the festival in the month of vaikashi, but the second respondent, without considering the said fact, passed the present impugned order. after the passing of impugned order, the petitioner has given a representation dated 13.05.2016 to the first respondent / the district collector, dindigul district, dindigul, who is the appellate authority.4. however, at the time of argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner restricted his prayer to the effect that the petitioner would be satisfied, if a direction is given to the first respondent / district collector to conduct enquiry, based on the petitioner's representation made on 13.05.2016.5. in view of the limited scope of prayer now sought for by the petitioner in the present writ petition, the first respondent / the district collector, dindigul district, dindigul, is directed to conduct enquiry on the representation of the petitioner dated 13.05.2016 and pass suitable orders on the same, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.6. the writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms. no costs. consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

Full Judgment

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the second respondent dated 15.04.2016 and quash the same as illegal and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 4 to grant permission an also provide adequate Police protection for conduct and celebrate the Vaigashi festival of Sri Kali Amman, Sri Mari amman and Sri Bhagavathi Amman temple, Nandavanapatti, Dindigul District form 24.05.2016 to 26.05.2016 as mentioned in his representation dated 26.03.2016.)

1. This writ petition has been filed calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the second respondent, dated 15.04.2016 and quash the same as illegal and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 4 to grant permission and also provide adequate Police protection for conduct and celebrate the Vaigashi festival of Sri Kali Amman, Sri Mari Amman and Sri Bhagavathi Amman temple, Nandavanapatti, Dindigul District from 24.05.2016 to 26.05.2016, as mentioned in his representation dated 26.03.2016.

2. Heard Mr.S.Sukumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Aayiram K. Selvakumar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

3. The petitioner challenges the impugned order dated 15.04.2016, passed by the second respondent, stating that usually, the petitioner's community alone conduct the festival in the month of Vaikashi, but the second respondent, without considering the said fact, passed the present impugned order. After the passing of impugned order, the petitioner has given a representation dated 13.05.2016 to the first respondent / the District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul, who is the appellate Authority.

4. However, at the time of argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner restricted his prayer to the effect that the petitioner would be satisfied, if a direction is given to the first respondent / District Collector to conduct enquiry, based on the petitioner's representation made on 13.05.2016.

5. In view of the limited scope of prayer now sought for by the petitioner in the present Writ Petition, the first respondent / the District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul, is directed to conduct enquiry on the representation of the petitioner dated 13.05.2016 and pass suitable orders on the same, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

6. The Writ Petition stands disposed of in the above terms. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

Same Court & Year Chennai Madurai · 2016 Same Parties A. Murugesan vs The District Collector, Dindigul and Others Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge M.V. Muralidaran