Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 91369
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
M. Dhandapani, N. Dilip Kumar, JJ
Muppudathi – Appellant
Versus
District Collector, Tenkasi District, Tenkasi – Respondent
W.P(MD)No.14782 of 2023|WMP (MD) Nos.12461 and 12462 of 2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M.Saravanan
For the Respondents: M.Mahaboob Athiff, M.Prabhu
A writ petition is closed as infructuous when the grievance, such as an encroachment, is removed during the pendency of the proceedings, leaving no further cause for adjudication.
Headnote:(A) Writ Jurisdiction - Encroachment Removal - Mootness - Where the encroachment complained of has been removed during the pendency of the writ petition, the petition becomes infructuous and is liable to be closed. (Para 3, 4)
Issues: Whether the writ petition survives after the removal of the encroachment.
PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent in Na.Ka.No.79/2019 dated 01.06.2023 and quash the same.
O R D E R
(Order of the Court was made by M.DHANDAPANI, J.)
Challenging the impugned order dated 01.06.2023 passed by the third respondent, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the subject land is classified as “Natham Land” and therefore, the respondents have no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order.
3. However, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that, during the pendency of the writ petition, the encroachment made by the petitioner has been removed and hence, nothing survives for further adjudication in this writ petition.
4. Recording the same, the present writ petition stands closed, leaving it open to the petitioner to work out his remedy in the manner known to law. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
