Dismissed

Mrs.Muthulakshmi v. N.Bhanumathi

Madras HC11 Nov 2022CONT P/2202/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court closed a contempt petition arising from partial non-compliance of a patta issuance order. While the respondent acknowledged issuing patta for a reduced area, the court held that they had complied with the directive to issue the patta.

What did the court decide?

The contempt petition was closed. The respondent is at liberty to face further challenges regarding the patta extent via appropriate proceedings.

Mrs.Muthulakshmi Vs N.Bhanumathi — Madras HC (2022) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Cont. P.No.2202 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 11.11.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

Contempt No.2202 of 2022

¶7

Muthulakshmi .... Petitioner

¶8

¶9

N.Bhanumathi .... Respondent

¶10

Prayer :- Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of Contempt of Court Act 1971, praying to punish the respondent for having committed contempt for non-compliance of the order of this Court dated 14.12.2021 passed in W.P.No.17276 of 2021.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr. S.Makesh For Respondent : Mr.S.P.Karthik Government Advocate

¶12

ORDER

¶13

This Contempt Petition has been filed to punish the respondent for

¶14

non-compliance of the order dated 14.12.2021 passed by this Court in W.P.No.17276 of 2021, thereby, this Court, while setting aside the

¶15

impugned order dated 29.04.2021, directed the respondents to issue patta in respect of the subject property comprised in Old Natham S.No.157/C1

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

Page 1 of 4

¶18

Cont. P.No.2202 of 2022

¶19

and New Nathan S.No.404/14 situated at Angalakurichi Village, Anaimalai Taluk, Coimbatore District.

¶20

The learned Government Advocate appearing for the

¶21

respondent would submit that as directed by this Court, the petitioner was issued patta for the subject property and also produced the copy of the same before this Court. However, this Court had clarified that as per the order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court and the sketch produced by the petitioner, the pathway situated between S.Nos.407/1 and 407/14 and encroached by other third party and that the subject property is no way connected with the pathway. However, the respondent, without considering the same, had now issued patta only for an extent of 70 sq.mt instead of 100 sq.mt for the survey No.404/14 situated at Angalakurichi Village, Anaimalai Taluk, Coimbatore District.

¶22

As the respondent had complied with the order passed by this Court, this Contempt Petition is closed. However, if the petitioner has any grievance over the patta issued to him, he is at liberty to challenge the same in the manner known to law, if so advised.

¶23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶24

Page 2 of 4

¶25

Cont. P.No.2202 of 2022

¶26

In view of the above, this Contempt Petition is closed.

¶27

11.11.2022

¶28

Internet : Yes Index : Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order Lpp

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

Page 3 of 4

¶31

Cont. P.No.2202 of 2022

¶32

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

¶33

Lpp

¶34

Contempt No.2202 of 2022

¶35

11.11.2022

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶37

Page 4 of 4

Mrs.Muthulakshmi v. N.Bhanumathi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs.Muthulakshmi v. N.Bhanumathi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vinoth, Aged 30 Years, Vs State Rep. by

Raja, Vs State Rep. by

Selvi, F/65 (A2) Vs State by

Amutha, F/A.25 Years Vs State by

S. Natrajan Vs Ayyasamy (Died)

Tiruvallurvar Transport Corporation Vs Priya