P.Thangaraj v. The District Collector,

ORDER This writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated

22.07.2020 passed by the 3rd respondent.

¶2The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in this case, there is a title dispute over the subject property between the petitioners and the 5th respondent. Under these circumstances, at the instance of 5th respondent, the 3rd respondent had passed an order dated 22.07.2020 by directing the petitioners not to interfere with the possession of the 5th respondent. Further, the 3rd respondent had suggested the parties to approach any appropriate Civil Court to decide with regard to the title of the property.

¶3According to the petitioners, they had not at all interfered with the possession of the 5th respondent and hence, aggrieved over the said order, the present petition came to be filed.

¶4Today, the learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent had confirmed the submission made by the petitioners and would submit that as on date, the petitioners are not interfering with the possession of 5th respondent and also, the 5th respondent is not interfering with the possession of petitioners. Hence, he would submit that no further order is required in this petition. He would also submit that no civil suit has been filed till date.

¶5Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondents and also perused the entire materials available on record.

¶6In the case on hand, the main grievance of the petitioners is with regard to the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent, whereby, the petitioners are directed not to disturb the peaceful possession of the 5th respondent. According to the petitioners, they had not interfered with the possession of the 5th respondent till date. The said aspect was also confirmed by the 5th respondent.

¶7In view of the above, since there was no interference to the peaceful possession of both the petitioners as well as 5th respondent, no further order is required in this case. The parties are directed to maintain the same status until the disposal of civil suit, to be filed by them.

¶8With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No cost. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also closed. 22-04-2026 nsa Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes To

1.The District Collector, Salem, Salem District.

2.The District Revenue Officer, Salem, Salem District.

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Mettur, Mettur Taluk, Salem District.

4.The Tahsildar, Mattur, Salem District. KRISHNAN RAMASAMY J. nsa 22-04-2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 22-04-2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY AND WMP NO. 18997 OF 2021 1. P.Thangaraj S/o.Ponnappan@Muthusamy Gounder, No.2/1195, Pattan Street, Mallikundam, Mecheri-636 458, Mettur Taluk, Salem District. and another 2. P.Rathinam, S/o.Ponnappan@Muthusamy Gounder, No.6/41B2, Pattan Street, Mallikundam, Mecheri-636 458, Mettur Taluk, Salem District. Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The District Collector, Salem, Salem District. 2.The District Revenue Officer, Salem, Salem District. 3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Mettur, Mettur Taluk, Salem District. 4.The Tahsildar, Mattur, Salem District. 5.Sambu, W/o.Tambiannan (late), Savalanur Kattuvalavu, Pottaneri Post, Mettur Taluk, Salem District. Respondent(s) PRAYER Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order made in Mu.Mu. 2319/2019-A dated 22.07.2020 passed by the 3rd respondent quash the same, and consequently forebear the respondents from in any way interfering with the petitioners right to property an extent of 0.35.0 Ares in S.No.28/4 at Pottaneri Village, Mettur Taluk, Salem District For Petitioner(s): Mr.P.Ganesan For Respondent(s): Mr.T.K.Saravanan, AGP for R1 to 4 Mr.A.Saravanan, AGP for R5