Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

G.Vijiya Vs Rajkumar — Madras HC (2018) — LawSathi Research

Home
Madras HC
2018
G.Vijiya Vs RajkumarG.Vijiya v. Rajkumar

Disposed

G.Vijiya v. Rajkumar

Madras HC14 Dec 2018CONT P/2266/2018

Case brief

from the order text

What is this about?

COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED :…

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

A

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 14.12.2018

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

Contempt Petition No.2266 of 2018

Mrs.G.Vijaya, W/o.Late Gopal Naidu. ... Petitioner

-vs-

Mr.Rajkumar, The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), SIPCOT, Sriperumbudur Scheme, Irungattukottai, First Floor, No.32, Gandhi Road, Sriperumbudur-602 105. ... Respondent

Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to punish the respondent for his wilful disobedience of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.7917 of 2016 dated 03.03.2016.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ramachandran

For Respondent : Mr.M.Elumalai, Government Advocate

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
Mrs.G.Vijaya
respondent
Mr.Rajkumar

Coram

AI extract

T.S.Sivagnanam

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Madras HC
Decided on: 14 Dec 2018 · December
Registered: 3 Oct 2018
Case no.: CONT P/2266/2018

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from T. S. Sivagnanam

G.Kanthmmal Vs Killi Chandrasekar, I.A.S.
30 Nov 2018
B.Chinnasamy Vs Mr.Gagandeep Singh Bedi IAS
23 Nov 2018
C.Rosammal Vs a.Jesurathnam
23 Nov 2018
G. Arumugam Vs Malathi
14 Dec 2018

Cite this judgement

G.Vijiya v. Rajkumar, CONT P/2266/2018 (MAD), decided on 14 December 2018.

The Madras High Court publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Bench / Coram

T.S.Sivagnanam

Parties & counsel

Disposed

A compact analysis

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.

O R D E R

This contempt petition has been filed alleging wilful disobedience of the order and direction issued by this Court in W.P.No.7917 of 2016, dated 03.03.2016.

2.For better appreciation, the operative portion of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the order is quoted hereinbelow:-

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

2

“3.The petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition would state that there was a Suit filed by one Kamalammal and Srivinivasan in O.S.No.245 of 2003, on the file of District Munsif Court, Thiruvallur in respect of the said property in which, the petitioner was the defendant. Thereafter, the Suit has been transferred to the District Munsif Court, Sriperumpudur, and renumbered as O.S.No.858 of 2008. it is submitted by the petitioner that the Suit was dismissed for non-prosecution on 10.07.2014 and the plaintiffs have not taken any steps to restore the Suit. With these facts, the petitioner seeks for payment of compensation and she is said to have made a representation to the respondents.”

3.The respondent-contemnor, namely,

Mr.G.Karunagaran, Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), SIPCOT, Irungattukottai & Sriperumbudur Schemes,

Sriperumbudur Taluk, is present in Court today, and he has stated that the petitioner has refused to receive the compensation and therefore, he has deposited the award amount, awarded in Award No.5/1998, on the file of the SubCourt, Kancheepuram, vide Lr.No.R.C.19/2016/A/dated 10.12.2018. This letter has been received by the

Sheristadar of the Sub-Court, Kancheepuram on 17.12.2018. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3

4.The Special Tahsildar submits that the 'patta' in

respect of the land is a 'joint patta' standing in the name of Tmt.Vijaya and Tmt.Thulasiyammal. The co-pattadar, viz., Tmt.Thulasiyammal, is no more and one Kamalammal,

claiming to be entitled to the property through Thulasiyammal, filed a suit against the petitioner herein in O.S.No.245 of 2003 on the file of the District Munsif

Court, Thiruvallur in which, the petitioner was arrayed as a defendant. The suit was subsequently transferred to the

District Munsif Court, Sriperumbudur, and re-numbered as O.S.No.858 of 2008. However, the suit was dismissed for

non-prosecution on 10.07.2014, and no steps have been taken

to restore the suit. Interestingly, in the suit, the Special Tahsildar, SIPCOT, Irungattukottai, is the third defendant. Along with Kamalammal, one Sriraman is also

arrayed as second plaintiff. This rival claim sought to be

created by the person claiming an alleged right through

Thulasiyammal has been unsuccessful in their attempt. Therefore, this Court is of the clear view that no person could stake a claim alleging that they are entitled to a

share in the property through Thulasiyammal, as such an

attempt has already failed. Thus, the patta should be

construed to be standing in the name of Tmt.G.Vijaya, who

is entitled to receive the compensation. Since the

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

compensation amount was very meagre, the petitioner has

refused to receive it and the Special Tahsildar has rightly

4

deposited the same before the Sub-Court, Kancheepuram.

concious of the fact that it may take a long time for the

Land Acquisition Original Petition (LAOP) to be disposed of. However, in the subject acquisition, already the land

Sriperumbudur vs. N.Sripathy and Others) dated 30.11.2009.

her are also covered in the same notification and

therefore, she is also entitled to the same amount of compensation.

Court, Kancheepuram for an early decision in the LAOP and

entitled to request the Court to apply the decision of the

Hon'ble Division Bench. Considering the fact that the

petitioner is aged about 64 years and the matter has been

kept pending in the Court since the year 2003, the Sub-

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Court, Kancheepuram is directed to dispose of the LAOP as

5

expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date on which the petitioner enters appearance.

8.For the above reasons, this contempt petition is
disposed of. No costs.
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.
PS1/03/01/2019
To

The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), SIPCOT, Sriperumbudur Scheme, Irungattukottai, First Floor, No.32, Gandhi Road, Sriperumbudur-602 105.

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

CNR

HCMA013338142018

Bench

T. S. Sivagnanam

Disposal

DISPOSED OF

M.Mahendran Vs K.Pandy

14 Dec 2018

Mrs.Pushpallela Vs Mrs.Eswari

14 Dec 2018