Dismissed

S.Thamarai Selvi v. Kumar Jayant IAS

Madras HC8 Mar 2022CONT P/223/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed contempt petitions filed against Government officials for alleged non-compliance with a writ order regarding land encroachment. It held that respondents complied with the order by demarcating and removing encroachments. The Court ruled that issues regarding the correctness of demarcation must be resolved through other legal remedies, as contempt jurisdiction is limited.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petitions dismissed; Sub Applications 68 and 69 closed; petitioners told to seek remedy through law for demarcation challenges.

S.Thamarai Selvi Vs Kumar Jayant IAS — Contempt of Court | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

Cont.P.Nos.223 and 224 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 08.03.2022

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

¶8

Contempt Petition Nos.223 and 224 of 2022

¶9

and Sub. Appln. Nos.68 and 69 of 2022

¶10

S.Thamarai Selvi, No.3/6, 3^rd Main Road, Chitlapakkam, Chennai 600 064 .. Petitioner in CP.223/2022

¶11

C.Loganathan,

¶12

No.2, 3^rd Main Road, Chitlapakkam, Chennai 600 064 .. Petitioner in CP.224/2022

¶13

¶14

Mr.Kumar Jayant, I.A.S., Secretary, Govt. of Tamil Nadu, Department of Revenue, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.

¶15

Mr.K.Manivasan, I.A.S., Secretary, Govt. of Tamil Nadu, Department of Public Works, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.

¶16

Mr.A.R.Rahul Nadh, I.A.S., The District Collector, Office of the District Collector, Chengalpattu.

¶17

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

¶18

Page 1 of 5

¶19

Cont.P.Nos.223 and 224 of 2022

¶20

Mr.Balaji Tahsildar, Tambaram Taluk, Chennai 600 064.

¶21

Mr.Prabhu

¶22

The Assistant Engineer, Public Works Department, Padappai. .. Respondents in both CPs.

¶23

Prayer: Petitions filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, to punish the respondents for having committed contempt of court for violating the order dated 06.01.2022 passed in W.P.Nos.20597 and 20598 of 2021 on the file of this Court.

¶24

For the Petitioners : Mr.C.Umashankar For the Respondents : Mr.J.Ravindran Addl. Adv. General assisted by Mr.P.Muthukumar State Govt. Pleader. * * * * *

¶25

COMMON ORDER

¶26

(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶27

The contempt petitions have been filed alleging non-compliance of

¶28

the directions given by this Court in para 5 of the order. For ready reference,

¶29

para 5 of the order is quoted hereunder:-

¶30

" 5. The challenge to the notices in Form-III has been

¶31

made in regard to the land purchased by the petitioners. The title document of the land has not been produced or shown to claim right of possession. According to the respondents, there

¶32

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

¶33

Page 2 of 5

¶34

Cont.P.Nos.223 and 224 of 2022

¶35

is an encroachment in the waterbody. Therefore, action has been rightly initiated by the respondents. In view of the facts given above, we do not find any ground to question the notices in Form-III. However, the respondents would proceed further to remove the encroachments after demarcation of waterbody, which would be completed by 31.01.2022.

¶36

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that

¶37

without demarcation, the construction raised by the petitioners has been demolished, thus, the directions given by this Court have been violated.

¶38

The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the contemnors disputed the allegation and submitted that it is only after demarcation of the waterbody that the encroachment made by the petitioners was removed. The fact about demarcation of the boundaries of waterbody

¶39

was narrated even in the writ petitions by submitting an affidavit and therefore, contempt is not made out.

¶40

At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the land on which they have raised construction was not part of the waterbody, rather it was away from the boundaries of waterbody and thereby, the demarcation of the land was not properly made.

¶41

We have considered the submissions and find that the scope of contempt petitions is quite limited. So far as the directions contained in

¶42

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ para 5 are concerned, the respondents have complied because it is not only

¶43

Page 3 of 5

¶44

Cont.P.Nos.223 and 224 of 2022

¶45

demarcation of the land of waterbody has been made, but finding encroachment therein, it was removed. If, according to the petitioners, demarcation was not properly made and thereby the land on which they were in possession was not falling under the boundaries of waterbody, they can take the remedy in accordance with law, but the aforesaid cannot be considered while hearing a contempt petition because of limited jurisdiction, as held by the Apex Court in the case of J.S.Parihar vs. Ganpat Duggar reported in (1996) 6 SCC 291 .

¶46

The contempt petitions are, accordingly, dismissed. However, it will not close the right of the petitioners to challenge the action of the respondents, if the demarcation is to be challenged so as the further action. Consequently, Sub Application Nos.68 and 69 of 2022 are closed.

¶47

SD/-

¶48

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR(COMM.CASES)

¶49

sra

¶50

//Certified to be true copy//

¶51

Dated at Madras this the day of 2022.

¶52

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.

¶53

GS/31/03/2022

¶54

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

¶55

Page 4 of 5

¶56

Cont.P.Nos.223 and 224 of 2022

¶57

¶58

The Secretary,

¶59

Govt. of Tamil Nadu, Department of Revenue, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.

¶60

The Secretary, Govt. of Tamil Nadu, Department of Public Works, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.

¶61

The District Collector, Office of the District Collector, Chengalpattu.

¶62

The Tahsildar, Tambaram Taluk, Chennai 600 064.

¶63

The Assistant Engineer, Public Works Department, Padappai.

¶64

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

¶65

Page 5 of 5

S.Thamarai Selvi v. Kumar Jayant IAS

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Thamarai Selvi v. Kumar Jayant IAS

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.S.R.Samuvel Vs The District Collector

Narasimmabalan Vs Union of India

N.P.Bhashgaran Vs The Chief Secretary

T.Ajithkumar Vs The Principal secretary

Immaculate College of Education for Women Vs Pondicherry University

K. Srinivasan Vs the Government of Tamil Nadu