Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 22868

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J
O Haribabu – Appellant
Versus
1. Additional Secretary To Government Industries, Investment Promotion And Commerce Department, Government Of Tamilnadu, Fort St George, Chennai – Respondent
WMP NO. 38210 of 2024, 53283, 53277 & 53281 OF 2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.P.R.Krishnaraj
For the Respondent(s): Mr.Abishek Murthy, Mr.Vadivel Dennadhayalan, AGP

A writ petition becomes infructuous when the subject matter has already been resolved by subsequent actions.

Headnote:Statute Analysis: The petition was filed challenging the Notification dated 10.08.2023 under Section 7(2) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997. Facts of the Case: The petitioner sought to quash the Notification, claiming it to be illegal, void, arbitrary, and without authority.

Findings of Court:
The court noted that the land in question had already been acquired, leading to the matter becoming infructuous.

Issues: The main issue was whether the writ petition was maintainable under the circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the subsequent actions by the respondents rendered the initial prayer moot, stating, 'it is clear that nothing survives in this petition.'

Result: This writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. No cost.

Table of Content
1. notification challenged under the tamil nadu acquisition of land for industrial purposes act. (Para 1 , 2)

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed challenging the Notification dated

10.08.2023 issued by the respondent under Section 7(2) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 (hereinafter called as “1997 Act”).

2. When this matter was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the respondents would submit that subsequent to the filing of this petition, the subject land was acquired and the subsequent Notifications, under Section 7(3), 7(5) & 7(6) of 1997 Act, were issued and the award was also passed. Now, the matter is pending before the LAOP Court for enhancement of compensation. Therefore, he would contend that the prayer in this petition has become infructuous and thus, prays for dismissal of this petition.

3. In view of the above, it is clear that nothing survives in this petition.

Therefore, by recording the submission made by the respondents, this writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. No cost. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document