Dismissed

Mrs.Pushpallela v. Mrs.Eswari

Madras HC14 Dec 2018CONT P/2093/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Hon'ble Court dismissed the contempt petition filed against the respondent Tahsildar for alleged disobedience of an earlier order, holding that since a panchayat road was formed and facilities provided, no compensation arose, rendering the writ petition devoid of merits.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition stands dismissed. No costs. Personal appearance of the respondent contemnor is dispensed with.

Mrs.Pushpallela Vs Mrs.Eswari — Contempt of Court | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 14.12.2018

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶6

Contempt Petition No.2093 of 2017 Mrs.Pushpaleela, W/o.Sripatel. ... Petitioner -vsMrs.Eswari, The Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare Department, Chengalpattu Taluk, Kancheepuram District. ... Respondent Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to punish the respondent for committing contempt of Court by disobeying the order dated 03.11.2015 passed in W.P.No.35295 of 2015. For Petitioner : Mr.Saravana Kumar For Respondent : Mr.K.Rajendra Prasad, Additional Government Pleader

¶7

O R D E R

¶8

This contempt petition has been filed alleging wilful disobedience of the order and direction issued by this Court in W.P.No.35295 of 2015, dated 03.11.2015.

¶9

2.Heard Mr.Saravana Kumar, learned counsel for the

¶10

petitioner and Mr.K.Rajendra Prasad, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent.

¶11

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶12

¶13

3.As per the directions issued, Mr.L.Manivannan, The Special Tahsildar, is present in Court today.

¶14

4.The Tahsildar has clearly explained by producing a

¶15

colour sketch that the petitioner's husband had promoted a layout of housing plots and the western boundaries of the plots has been shown as a road. This is delineated in “orange” in the sketch. The road, so formed, has now become a panchayat road and the same has been blacktopped, highly facilities have been provided and the layout is now fully developed and houses have been constructed. Beyond this road, on the southern side, a road has been formed and free house site patta has been granted by the Adi Dravidar Welfare Department. Since the petitioner's husband being a promoter of the layout and a road has been formed by the panchayat in the place shown as road in the layout plan,

¶16

the question of payment of any compensation to the

¶17

petitioner or to her husband does not arise. Thus, the fundamental basis on which the writ petition was filed is devoid of merits.

¶18

5.For the above reasons, the petitioner is not

¶19

entitled for any relief in the writ petition and consequently, the contempt petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶20

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶21

¶22

6.In the result, this contempt petition stands dismissed. No costs. The personal appearance of the

¶23

respondent - contemnor is dispensed with.

¶24

SD/-
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR(COMM.CASES)
abr
//Certified to be true copy//
Dated at Madras this the day of 2019.
COURT OFFICER(O.S.)
from 25 th day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing
Certified copies of the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this
format.
PS/3/01/2019
To
The Tahsildar,
Adi Dravidar Welfare Department,
Chengalpattu Taluk,
Kancheepuram District.

¶25

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Mrs.Pushpallela v. Mrs.Eswari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs.Pushpallela v. Mrs.Eswari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G.Kanthmmal Vs Killi Chandrasekar, I.A.S.

B.Chinnasamy Vs Mr.Gagandeep Singh Bedi IAS

C.Rosammal Vs a.Jesurathnam

G.Vijiya Vs Rajkumar

G. Arumugam Vs Malathi

M.Mahendran Vs K.Pandy