Dismissed

A.Umapathi v. B.Chandramohan

Madras HC2 Apr 2019CONT P/1140/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this contempt petition under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, the petitioner challenged non-compliance with a 2014 order regarding land encroachment. The court examined the 3rd respondent's compliance report confirming eviction and removal of encroachments. Finding the matter satisfactorily addressed without need for further enquiry, the court closed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition stood closed; petitioner directed to initiate fresh proceedings if encroachments remain.

A.Umapathi Vs B.Chandramohan — Contempt of Court | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED 11.06.2019

¶4

CORAM

¶5

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M.SUNDRESH and The Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.NIRMAL KUMAR

¶6

Cont.P.No.1140 of 2017

¶7

Mr.A.Umapathi, S/o.M.Arumugam, For Himself and on behalf of the villagers of Metupalayam Village, Village No.19, Kumizhi Panchayat, Kannivakkam Post, Chengleput Taluk, Kancheepuram District 603 202.

.. Petitioner

vs.

1.B.Chandramohan

The Secretary to Government, State of Tamilnadu, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

¶12

2.R.Gajalakshmi The District Collector, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram.

¶13

3.Ibrahim

¶14

The Tahsildar, Chengalput Taluk, Kancheepuram District.

¶15

4.V.R.Jayaseelan

¶16

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chengalput Division, Kancheepuram District.

¶17

.. Respondents

¶18

¶19

Petition filed under Section 11 of Contempt of Courts

¶20

Act to punish the respondents for their willful and disobedience of the orders passed in W.P.No.27105 of 2014 dated 13.10.2014, on the file of this Court.

¶21

For Petitioner .. K.S.V.Sethuraman

¶22

For Respondents .. Mr.M.Elumalai, Government Advocate

¶23

ORDER

¶24

(Order of the Court was delivered by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.)

¶25

Alleging that the order dated 13.10.2014, passed by this Court in W.P.No.27105 of 2014 has not been complied with, the present contempt petition has been filed.

¶26

In the compliance report filed by the 3rd

¶27

respondent, the following statement has been made:-

¶28

pursuant to the aforesaid direction of the Hon'ble Court, this respondent conducted enquiry and also inspected the land alleged to have been under encroachment. The inspection revealed that one Thiru.Venkatesan and 18 others were

¶29

encroaching an extent of about 2 acres in the land in Survey No:310/1 classified as Karadu Poramboke in Kumizhi village. Hence

¶30

action under the Tamil Nadu Land

¶31

Encroachment act 1905 was initiated to evict from by issuing notice under section of the aforesaid Act. It is intimated that this

¶32

¶33

respondent submitted a counter affidavit before the Hon'ble Court also early duly furnishing the aforesaid facts.

¶34

5.It is further more submitted that aggrieved by the eviction proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act 1905. The encroachment filed appeals before the 2^nd respondent. The said appeals were dismissed by the 2^nd respondent in this order in RC.15577/2011/B1 dated 30.11.2017. In the view of the dismissal of the appeal petitioner, the 2^nd respondent has also directed to remove the aforesaid encroachments.

¶35

6.It is submitted that in pursuant to the direction of the Hon'ble Court in W.P.No.4735 of 2011 dated 02.03.2011 and in W.P.No.4735 of 2011 and in W.P.No.27105 of 2014 dated 13.10.2014 and consequent to the dismissal of appeal petition by the 2^nd respondent all the 19 encroachments by way of Huts/Cement sheeted houses were removed on 11.02.2018 and 02.06.2018. Hence it is submitted that the directions of this Hon'ble Court has been fully complied with by this respondent.”

¶36

Though the learned counsel for the petitioner

¶37

submitted that the encroachments have not been removed in toto, we are not inclined to conduct roving enquiry in this regard. Similarly, the submission made by the Government

¶38

¶39

Advocate that even the petitioner is an encroacher is not gone into in this proceedings. Again, it would be suffice to state that the encroachments were removed by the respondents.

¶40

Accordingly, the contempt petition stands closed.

¶41

If the petitioner is of the view that the encroachments remain in S.No.310/1 of Mettupalayam Village, Chengalpattu Taluk, Kancheepuram District, it is well open to him to initiate fresh proceedings, if so advised. Further, we make it clear that in those cases in which Notice under Section 6 of the Act have been given, the Revenue Officials will have to take further action to remove the encroachments.

¶42

SD/-

¶43

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR(COMM.CASES)

¶44

smv/kmk

¶45

//Certified to be true copy//

¶46

Dated at Madras this the day of 2019.

¶47

COURT OFFICER(O.S.)

¶48

from 25^th day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing Certified copies of the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this format.

Sm/02/07/2019

To,

1.The Secretary to Government, State of Tamilnadu, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

¶53

2.The District Collector, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram.

¶54

3.The Tahsildar, Chengalput Taluk, Kancheepuram District.

¶55

4.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chengalput Division, Kancheepuram District.

A.Umapathi v. B.Chandramohan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Umapathi v. B.Chandramohan

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

Vivekanandhan Vs the State Rep by Its

Raj Kiran Vs the Deputy Inspector General of Prison

K.Karuppan Vs State Rep B Y

Prabharan Vs the State Rep. by

Nirmala Vs the Government of Tamilnadu

Surya Vs the Superintendent of Police