Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 alleging non-compliance of an order passed on 27.11.2015. Court discharged the petitioners, holding that appropriate orders were passed and remedy exists before Revenue Tahsildar.
Contempt Petition stands closed. Petitioners given liberty to work out remedy before the Revenue Tahsildar.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05.12.2016
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH
Cont.P.No.1572 of 2016
1.Vitheshkumar
2.O.Venkatesh
3.Muralidharan
4.N.Amarendiran
5.V.Lakshmanan
6.V.Jayalakshmi
7.Rathnamma
8.Prema
9.M.Anushuya
10.V.Parameshwaran
11.Rajamma ...Petitioners
-Vs-
1.Mr.K.Kandasamy,
District Backward Class and Minorities Welfare Officer, Krishnagiri District,
Krishnagiri.
2.Mr.R.Arockiasamy,
Special Tahsildar, AdiDravidar Welfare,
Hosur, Krishnagiri District. ...Respondents
Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971, to punish the respondents for wilfully disobeying the order dated 27.11.2015 passed by this Court in W.P.No.37824 of 2015.
2
For Petitioners : Mr.R.Jayaprakash For Respondents : Mr.A.N.Thambidurai,
Special Government Pleader
O R D E R
Alleging that the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.37824 of 2015 dated 27.11.2015 has not been complied
with, the present Contempt Petition has been filed.
2.From the typed set of papers, it is seen that the 2nd respondent in and by the proceedings dated 18.01.2016 has disposed of the representation of the petitioners by referring the order passed by this Court stating that the land in question has been classified as Grama Natham and therefore, the remedy of the petitioners is before the Revenue Tahsildar, Hosure for obtaining free house site patta.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted
that the said order is not in proper compliance of the order of this Court.
4.The said submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted for the reason that this Court directed the 2nd respondent to pass appropriate orders
3
taking into consideration the representation of the
petitioners. The said exercise has been undertaken. If the petitioners are still aggrieved, the remedy open to the petitioners is to challenge the same in the manner known to law.
5.In view of the same, the Contempt Petition stands closed. The petitioners are given liberty to work out their remedy in the manner known to law. Sd/JOINT REGISTRAR(OS) //Certified to be true copy// Dated at Madras this the day of 2016. COURT OFFICER(O.S.)
From 25th Day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this format. CO/22/12/2016
To
One CC to R.Jayaprakash, Advocate, Sr.No.16139.
4
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the present Contempt Petition stands closed and the petitioners are given liberty to work out their remedy.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Vitheshkumar and others
Mr.K.Kandasamy
Mr.R.Arockiasamy
M.M.Sundresh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
