Disposed

Balamurugan v. S.Aneesh Sekhar

Madras HC25 Apr 2023CONT P(MD)/419/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt petition regarding wilful disobedience of an earlier order, the Court observed that building a water tank on government waste land was not contemptuous as it benefited the local residents. Regarding encroachments, the Court granted six months to respondents to clear Survey Nos. 69/1 and 112 completely and filed a status report.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition closed; six months granted for full removal of encroachments in Survey Nos. 69/1 and 112; status report filed; appearance of officials dispensed with.

Balamurugan Vs S.Aneesh Sekhar — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Cont.P.(MD) No.419 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 25.04.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.T.RAJA, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN

¶6

Cont.P.(MD) No.419 of 2023 in W.P.(MD) No.25431 of 2022

Balamurugan

... Petitioner

-vs-

1.S.Aneesh Sekhar District Collector Madurai Madurai District

¶11

2.Thirumalai Rajan Tahsildar Madurai North Taluk Madurai District

¶12

3.Jeyalakshmi Executive Officer Paravai Town Panchayat (Selection Grade) Madurai District ... Respondents

¶13

_____________ Page 1 of 8_

¶14

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

¶15

PRAYER:

¶16

Cont.P.(MD) No.419 of 2023

¶17

PRAYER: Contempt Petition is filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act praying to punish the respondents for the willful disobedience of

¶18

the order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD) No.25431 of 2022, dated 09.11.2022.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.R.J.Karthick For Respondents : Mr.Veera Kathiravan Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.P.Thilakkumar Government Pleader

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

[Order of the Court was made by The Hon'ble ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE]

¶22

This contempt petition has been filed alleging wilful disobedience of the order, dated 09.11.2022, made in W.P.(MD) No.25431 of 2022.

¶23

2. Pursuant to the order, dated 12.04.2023, Dr.S.Aneesh Sekhar, District Collector, R.Thirumalai, Tahsildar, Madurai North Taluk, S.Sethuraman, Assistant Director (Town Panchayats), Madurai Zone and B.Jeyalakshmi, Executive officer, Paravai Town Panchayat, are present before this Court.

¶24

Page 2 of 8

¶25

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

¶26

Cont.P.(MD) No.419 of 2023

¶27

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the

¶28

learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents.

¶29

4. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents submitted that since the overhead water tank with a capacity of 1 lakh liters has been built in the land in Survey No.111/1, utilizing around 1 Are, which is classified as “Government un-assessed waste”, the petitioner cannot have any grievance / objection.

¶30

5. Since the overhead water tank built in Survey No.111/1 is going to cater to the needs of all the residents in that locality, moreover, the petitioner, his family members, friends, guests etc., also would be the beneficiaries, we are of the view that such construction of overhead water tank cannot be construed as a contemptuous act. However, we wish to make it clear that if any other Government un-assessed waste land is going to be utilized by the local authority in future, necessary administrative sanction from the Inspector of Panchayats / District Collectors must be obtained for such utilization.

¶31

_____________ Page 3 of 8_

¶32

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

¶33

Cont.P.(MD) No.419 of 2023

¶34

6. Insofar as the land in Survey No.69/1, which is classified as “tha;f;fhy;”, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that Form-I notices have already been issued to the encroachers as early as on 05.01.2023 calling upon them to remove the encroachments by themselves. If they failed to remove the encroachments, suitable action will be taken for removal of those encroachments.

¶35

7. At this juncture, the District Collector, who is present before this Court, submitted that there are fifteen residential houses, besides the encroachments and except those fifteen houses, the other encroachments have been removed. After finding out alternative accommodation, suitable action will be initiated expeditiously for removal of those houses.

¶36

8. Insofar as the land in Survey No.112, which is classified as “Xil”, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that some of the encroachments have been removed and notices have already been issued to the remaining encroachers as early as on 24.01.2023 calling upon them to remove the encroachments by themselves and if they failed to remove the encroachments, suitable action will be taken for removal of those encroachments.

¶37

_____________ Page 4 of 8_

¶38

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

¶39

Cont.P.(MD) No.419 of 2023

¶40

9. Regarding Survey No.67, which is classified as “kahdk;”, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that on 28.12.2022, Form-I Notice was issued to the encroacher, who has constructed a Marriage Hall in the said survey number. However, challenging the Form-I notice, the encroacher has filed a writ petition in W.P.(MD) No.8349 of 2023 before this Court.

¶41

10. Insofar as the lands in Survey Nos.101 and 127, which are classified as “Xil” and “tha;f;fhy;” respectively, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that there is no encroachment in those survey numbers.

¶42

11. Recording the above submissions of the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents, this contempt petition is closed. No costs.

¶43

12. The appearance of the District Collector and other officers, as mentioned above, is dispensed with.

¶44

_____________ Page 5 of 8_

¶45

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

¶46

Cont.P.(MD) No.419 of 2023

¶47

13. However, for removal of encroachments fully in Survey Nos. 69/1 and 112, this Court grants six months time from the date of receipt of a

¶48

copy of this order to the respondents and after removing the encroachments, the respondents are directed to file a status report before this Court.

¶49

14. This contempt petition stands adjourned to 30.10.2023 only for filing a status report by the respondents in respect of Survey Nos.69/1 and 112, wherein as of today, the encroachments have not been removed fully and steps are being taken to remove the encroachments.

¶50

[T.R., A.C.J.] [R.S.M., J.]

¶51

25.04.2023

¶52

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

¶53

krk

¶54

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

¶55

Page 6 of 8

¶56

Cont.P.(MD) No.419 of 2023

¶57

To:

¶58

1.Dr.S.Aneesh Sekhar, District Collector, Madurai, Madurai District.

¶59

2.Mr.Thirumalai Rajan, Tahsildar, Madurai North Taluk, Madurai District.

¶60

3.Ms.Jeyalakshmi, Executive Officer, Paravai Town Panchayat, (Selection Grade), Madurai District.

¶61

Page 7 of 8

¶62

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

¶63

Cont.P.(MD) No.419 of 2023

¶64

T.RAJA, A.C.J. and R.SUBRAMANIAN , J.

¶65

krk

¶66

Cont.P.(MD) No.419 of 2023 in W.P.(MD) No.25431 of 2022

¶67

25.04.2023

¶68

Page 8 of 8

¶69

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

Balamurugan v. S.Aneesh Sekhar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balamurugan v. S.Aneesh Sekhar

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

Gnanaselva Pappa Vs the Commissioner

The State of Tamil Nadu, Vs S. Sujatha

Sankaranarayanan.C Vs The District Collector