Allowed

GUNASUNDARI(Died),1).Sundaram, v. Uma Maheswari

Madras HC9 Oct 2023SUB A(MD)/52/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

, continuation from thought 13: , Sub Application No.52 of 2023, directed the disposal of a sub-application under the Contempt of Courts Act seeking punishment for the dishonour of court orders. The court allowed the application and disposed of the sub-application, lifting the undertaking of the petitioners and nullifying any encumbrance created by respondents. The court held that the restraint on

What did the court decide?

Vacated the undertaking of petitioners, nullified encumbrances created by respondents, and disposed of the sub-application. Directed entry of order in encumbrance register.

GUNASUNDARI(Died),1).Sundaram, Vs Uma Maheswari — Contempt of Court | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Sub Application No.52 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 09.10.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

Sub Application No.52 of 2023 in

¶7

Cont.P.(MD)No.703 of 2019 in

¶8

W.P.(MD)No.25557 of 2018

¶9

Gunasundari (Died)

¶10

1.Sundaram

¶11

2.Kannan

¶12

3.Muthamazhil Selvi

¶13

4.R.Premavathy ... Petitioners

¶14

Vs.

¶15

1.Uma Maheswari,

¶16

The District Collector, Pudukkottai District, Pudukkottai.

¶17

2.Ramasamy,

¶18

The District Revenue Officer, Pudukkottai District.

¶19

3.Subbaiah,

¶20

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Pudukkottai District.

¶21

1/6

¶22

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

¶23

Sub Application No.52 of 2023

¶24

4.Jamuna, The Tahsildar, Avudaiyarkovil Taluk, Pudukkottai District. ... Respondents

¶25

PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, to reopen the main Contempt Petition (MD). No.703 of 2019 which was closed on 18.11.2022 and to punish the 4^th respondent herein for the willful disobedience of the orders passed in W.P.(MD)No.25557 of 2018 dated 11.03.2019.

¶26

For Petitioners : Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai, For Mr.V.Manikandan For Respondents : Mr.Veerakathiravan, Addl. Advocate General, Assisted by Mr.K.Balasubramani, Spl. Government Pleader.

¶27

O R D E R

¶28

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General assisted by the learned Special Government

¶29

Pleader for the respondents.

¶30

2/6

¶31

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

¶32

Sub Application No.52 of 2023

¶33

2.W.P.(MD)No.25557 of 2018 filed by Gunasundari was

¶34

allowed by this Court on 11.03.2019. The order passed by this Court was confirmed by the Hon'ble Division Bench. The SLP filed by the Government was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the meanwhile, Cont.P.(MD)No.703 of 2023 came to be filed. I had directed the respondents to restore the original position in the revenue record with a rider that the petitioner should not alienate the property till the issue attains finality. Now that the issue has attained finality, the said restraint imposed on the petitioner will no longer hold good. The contempt petition was closed on 18.11.2022 in the following terms:-

¶35

“Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Advocate General assisted by the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents.

¶36

2.Contending that the order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.25557 of 2018 dated 11.03.2019 has not been complied with, this contempt petition has been filed.

¶37

3.The order passed by this Court was put to challenge in W.A.(MD)Nos.1201 and 1588 of 2019. The said writ appeals were dismissed in June 2022. The

¶38

3/6

¶39

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

¶40

Sub Application No.52 of 2023

¶41

learned Additional Advocate General submitted that challenging the order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench, SLP is proposed to be filed. I had already recorded the undertaking of the petitioners that they will not alienate the property in question till the matter attains finality before the Hon'ble Apex Court. The jurisdictional Thasildar was directed to issue proceedings in favour of the petitioners in the meanwhile. I had also made it clear that even if patta is mutated and the names of the petitioners are entered in the revenue record, they will be subject to eventual outcome of the proceedings in SLP. Today the matter was posted for reporting compliance.

¶42

4.Mr.William Moses is present before this Court and he has produced copy of the proceedings issued by him bearing Na.Ka.A6/3445/2022 dated 17.11.2022. The names of the petitioners namely, Sundaram, Kannan, Muthamazhil Selvi and R.Premavathy have been entered in the village accounts. The undertaking given by the petitioners will hold good for a reasonable period. It is for the State to expedite SLP filed by them.

¶43

5.Since the order passed by this Court has now been complied with, this contempt petition deserves to be closed. It is accordingly closed.

¶44

4/6

¶45

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

¶46

Sub Application No.52 of 2023

¶47

6.The Registry is directed to mark a copy of this order to the Sub Registrar, Registration Department, Mimisal, Pudukkottai District.”

¶48

3.It is now made clear that the undertaking of the petitioner

¶49

stands vacated. Any encumbrance created by the respondents in respect of the petition mentioned property shall also be nullified. This order shall be entered in the encumbrance register.

¶50

4.This sub application is disposed of accordingly.

¶51

09.10.2023

¶52

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

¶53

To:-

¶54

1.Uma Maheswari, The District Collector, Pudukkottai District, Pudukkottai.

¶55

2.Ramasamy, The District Revenue Officer, Pudukkottai District.

¶56

5/6

¶57

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

¶58

Sub Application No.52 of 2023

¶59

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

¶60

ias

¶61

3.Subbaiah, The Revenue Divisional Officer, Pudukkottai District.

¶62

4.Jamuna, The Tahsildar, Avudaiyarkovil Taluk, Pudukkottai District.

¶63

Sub Application No.52 of 2023 in Cont.P.(MD)No.703 of 2019 in W.P.(MD)No.25557 of 2018

¶64

09.10.2023

¶65

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

¶66

6/6

GUNASUNDARI(Died),1).Sundaram, v. Uma Maheswari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

GUNASUNDARI(Died),1).Sundaram, v. Uma Maheswari

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

A.Thalaiselvi Vs the District Registrar (Administration)

Thalaiselvi a Vs the Deputy Inspector General

Thalaiselvi a Vs the District Revenue Officer Cum Additional District Magistrate

Murugan Vs the Inspector General

Kannan R Vs Government of Tamilnadu

Mahalingam Vs Inspector General of Registration