SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 74429

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr Justice N. SATHISH KUMAR
MASJIDUL MAJID JUMMA PALLIVASAL – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF TAMILNADU – Respondent



IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 15-12-2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR

1. Masjidul Majid Jumma Pallivasal Rep. By Its Secretary, No.30, 31 Sharma Nagar, Kundrathur, Chennai.

Petitioner(s)

Vs

1. The State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Its Secretary To Government, Bc, Mbc And Minorities Welfare Department, Chennai.

2.The District Collector Kanchipuram District.

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer Thiruperumputhur, Kanchipuram District.

4.The Tahsildar, Kundrathu Taluk, Kanchipuram District.

5.The Revenue Inspector Kundrathur Taluk, Kanchipuram District.

6.The District Welfare Officer District Backward Classes And Minorities Welfare Department, 7.The Block Development Officer

8.The Executive Officer Respondent(s)

PRAYER:Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, directing the respondents to provide land in Survey no.306 situated at Thirumudivakkam village, Kundrathur Taluk, Kancheepuram District for Grave Yard (Kabarusthan) for the use of Muslim people of more than 1000 families.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.D.Mohanaselvan For Respondent: Mr.S.Rajesh for R1 to R6 Government Advocate Mr.Mohammed Sadiq for R7 & R8 Government Advocate

ORDER

By consent of both sides, this writ is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

2. This petition has been filed for a direction, directing the respondents to provide land in Survey no.306 situated at Thirumudivakkam village, Kundrathur Taluk, Kancheepuram District for Grave Yard (Kabarusthan) for the use of Muslim people of more than 1000 families.

3. It is the grievance of the petitioner that though the lands have been identified as a graveyard for allotment to the petitioner, still the same has not been considered. Hence, seeks for a direction.

4. Heard both sides and perused the materials placed on record.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court without going into the merits of the case directs the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 25.07.2025 and pass appropriate order on merits and in accordance within a period of law within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

6. Accordingly, this petition stands disposed of. No costs.

15-12-2025 dhk Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No To

1.The Secretary To Government The State Of Tamilnadu Bc, Mbc And Minorities Welfare Department, Chennai.

2.The District Collector Kanchipuram District.

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer Thiruperumputhur, Kanchipuram District.

4.The Tahsildar, Kundrathu Taluk, Kanchipuram District.

5.The Revenue Inspector Kundrathur Taluk, Kanchipuram District.

6.The District Welfare Officer District Backward Classes And Minorities Welfare Department, Kanchipuram.

7.The Block Development Officer

8.The Executive Officer N.SATHISH KUMAR J.

dhk

15-12-2025

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top