Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 36845

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, CJ, G.Arul Murugan, J
M.Ongali – Appellant
Versus
A.Appapillai – Respondent
W.A.No.757 of 2026|C.M.P.No.7835 of 2026|W.P.No.3000 of 2026

Advocates:
For Appellant: Mr.Balan Haridas
For Respondents:Mr.G.Vignesh (Through Video Conferencing) for R1 to R3, Mr.K.Karthik Jagannath Government Advocate for R4 to R6

Appeal rendered infructuous by supervening compliance with court directions.

Headnote:First Paragraph: The writ petition challenged directions issued in land acquisition proceedings for a new broad gauge railway line under relevant revenue laws. Essential facts involved objections by affected parties to the acquisition process, which were considered and rejected by authorities post the single judge's order. The court found the appeal infructuous due to compliance with prior directions. Second Paragraph: The key issue was whether the single judge's directions in W.P.No.3000 of 2026 remained operative after subsequent proceedings. The ratio decidendi holds that appeals become infructuous upon supervening events rendering the original relief moot, allowing fresh challenges to new orders. Third Paragraph:

Result: Writ appeal dismissed as infructuous; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

Table of Content
1. appeal challenges single judge's writ order. (Para 2)
2. compliance renders appeal infructuous. (Para 4)
3. dismissal with liberty to challenge new proceedings. (Para 5)

Heard.

2. This writ appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent assails the order dated 10.2.2026 passed in W.P.No.3000 of 2026 whereby certain directions were issued by the learned Single Judge while disposing of the writ petition.

3. During the course of hearing, by producing proceedings of the

5^th respondent dated 16.4.2026, learned State counsel submitted that the directions contained in the order passed by the learned Single Judge have been complied with. In fact, the objections raised by the original writ petitioners have been considered and rejected. Therefore, this writ appeal is rendered infructuous.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants admits the issuance of the proceedings dated 16.4.2026.

5. In view of the above, the writ appeal is dismissed having rendered infructuous. The appellants are at liberty to assail the proceedings dated 16.4.2026, if so advised. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 36845

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASSushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, CJ, G.Arul Murugan, JM.Ongali – AppellantVersusA.Appapillai – RespondentW.A.No.757 of 2026|C.M.P.No.7835 of 2026|W.P.No.3000 of 2026

Appeal rendered infructuous by supervening compliance with court directions.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, CJ, G.Arul Murugan, J
M.Ongali – Appellant
Versus
A.Appapillai – Respondent
W.A.No.757 of 2026|C.M.P.No.7835 of 2026|W.P.No.3000 of 2026