Dismissed

R.Elavarasan, v. Dr.S.Aneesh Sekhar, I.A.S.

Madras HC27 Mar 2023CONT P(MD)/395/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order disposed of a contempt petition filed by R.Elavarasan against District Collector and others. An Advocate Commissioner reported that while encroachments were removed, the petitioner's land remains landlocked, rendering removal unhelpful. The court held there was no reason to proceed and closed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Contempt proceedings are not proceeded with; the Contempt Petition is closed.

R.Elavarasan, Vs Dr.S.Aneesh Sekhar, I.A.S. — Contempt of Court | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Cont.P(MD)No.395 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 27.03.2023

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI

¶6

Cont.P(MD)No.395 of 2023

R.Elavarasan

... Petitioner

vs.

Dr.S.Aneesh Sekhar IAS, The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai.

¶11

Mrs.Dhanalakshmi, The Special Tahsildar (Adi Dravidar Welfare), Adi Dravidar Welfare Unit I, Madurai District.

¶12

Mr.Veerapathiran, The Tahsildar, Vadipatti Taluk, Madurai Taluk.

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

PRAYER : Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, to initiate contempt proceedings against the contemnor/respondent and punish him for the wilful disobedience of the order of the High Court in W.P(MD)No.1698 of 2022 dated 28.10.2022.

¶15

1/4

¶16

Cont.P(MD)No.395 of 2023

¶17

For Petitioners : Mr.S.Rajasekar for M/s.Lajapathi Roy and Associates For Respondents : Mr.A.Baskaran Additional Government Pleader

¶18

ORDER

¶19

(Order of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.)

¶20

The Advocate Commissioner appointed has filed a report stating that the encroachments in Survey Nos.323/1A, 323/1B2, 323/1B1B1B1, 323/2A1A1, 323/2B have been removed.

¶21

2. The order, according to the Tahsildar, was complied in its

¶22

letter and spirit. Since this fact was disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, we had appointed Mr.P.Kiran Prakash, an Advocate practicing in this Bench as a Commissioner to visit the area in question and file a report. The Advocate Commissioner has filed a report stating that the encroachments in those survey numbers have, in fact, been removed, but the Commissioner has also pointed

¶23

out that such removal alone will not be helpful to the petitioner as

¶24

his land is landlocked with patta lands and removal of the

¶25

2/4

¶26

Cont.P(MD)No.395 of 2023

¶27

encroachment in those survey numbers would not serve the purpose or provide passage to the petitioner to his house. Hence, we see no reason to proceed with the contempt petition.

¶28

The Contempt Petition is therefore closed.

¶29

(R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.) & (L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.) 27.03.2023

¶30

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes bala

¶31

3/4

¶32

Cont.P(MD)No.395 of 2023

¶33

R.SUBRAMANIAN, J. and L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

¶34

bala

¶35

ORDER MADE IN Cont.P(MD)No.395 of 2023 DATED : 27.03.2023

¶36

4/4

R.Elavarasan, v. Dr.S.Aneesh Sekhar, I.A.S.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Elavarasan, v. Dr.S.Aneesh Sekhar, I.A.S.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The District Collector, Vs v. Murugesan

Arumuga Nainaar Vs The Registrar of Co-operative Societies (Housing)

Renuka Vs The Additional Chief Secretary to Government

The Commissioner of Land Administration Vs Xavier.a

Subramanian .v Vs The District Collector

Dhandapani. T Vs The District Collector