Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

E.Selvaraj. Vs. the Commissioner and ors.

E.Selvaraj vs The Commissioner and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Jul 23, 2012
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/928151

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Chennai High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
W.P.No.18825 of 2012 and M.P.No.1 of 2012
Subject
Constitution

Case Summary

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

Constitution

Key legal issue
Constitution
Acts & sections
Constitution of India - Articles 226

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

E.Selvaraj

Advocate Mr.V.M.Muralidaran, Adv.

Respondent

The Commissioner and ors.

Advocate Mr.V.C.Selvasekaran, Adv

Legal References

Acts
Constitution of India - Articles 226

Excerpt

writ petition is filed under article 226 of the constitution of india praying to issue a writ of mandamus, forbearing the respondents from interfering with the petitioners' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the properties in plots nos.i, ii, iii, iv & v at gajalakshmi nagar extn., nolambur village, ambathur taluk, chennai-600 005 except due process of law.order1. this writ petition is filed praying to issue a writ of mandamus, forbearing the respondents from interfering with the petitioners' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the properties in plots nos.i, ii, iii, iv & v at gajalakshmi nagar extn., nolambur village, ambathur taluk, chennai-600 005 except due process of law.2. mr.v.c.selvasekaran, learned counsel takes notice for the respondents. by consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.3. petitioners' apprehension is that the respondents are trying to interfere with the petitioners' property as above. in the typedset of papers, this court finds no specific complaint or representation made to the authorities concerned. therefore, at the outset no mandamus can be sought for.4. the counsel appearing for the respondents states that unless it is a case of encroachment for which action will be taken as per the relevant provision of law, the respondents will not interfere with the properties of individuals, unless required and without following the due process of law.5. the statement made by the learned counsel for the respondents as above is recorded. further, liberty is given to the petitioners, to give representation to the competent authority who shall consider the same on merits and in accordance with law, if still they are aggrieved.6. the writ petition is disposed of as above. no costs. consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Full Judgment

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents from interfering with the petitioners' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the properties in plots Nos.I, II, III, IV & V at Gajalakshmi Nagar Extn., Nolambur Village, Ambathur Taluk, Chennai-600 005 except due process of law.

ORDER

1. This Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents from interfering with the petitioners' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the properties in plots Nos.I, II, III, IV & V at Gajalakshmi Nagar Extn., Nolambur Village, Ambathur Taluk, Chennai-600 005 except due process of law.

2. Mr.V.C.Selvasekaran, learned counsel takes notice for the respondents. By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

3. Petitioners' apprehension is that the respondents are trying to interfere with the petitioners' property as above. In the typedset of papers, this court finds no specific complaint or representation made to the authorities concerned. Therefore, at the outset no mandamus can be sought for.

4. The counsel appearing for the respondents states that unless it is a case of encroachment for which action will be taken as per the relevant provision of law, the respondents will not interfere with the properties of individuals, unless required and without following the due process of law.

5. The statement made by the learned counsel for the respondents as above is recorded. Further, liberty is given to the petitioners, to give representation to the competent authority who shall consider the same on merits and in accordance with law, if still they are aggrieved.

6. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial