Disposed

Sumathi v. Mr.Venkataramakrishnan

Madras HC12 Mar 2024CONT P/2543/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner filed a contempt petition alleging non-compliance of a previous order regarding land survey and road laying. The government pleader submitted a letter explaining the status of various survey numbers and clarified that the pathway was on government land. The court deemed the explanation sufficient and closed the contempt petition without imposing punishment.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's application was closed without any punishment imposed for contempt.

Sumathi Vs Mr.Venkataramakrishnan — Municipal and Town Planning | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 12.03.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN

¶6

Cont P.No.2543 of 2023 in W.P.No.9193 OF 2023

Sumathi

.. Petitioner

Mr.Venkata Ramakrishnan The Block Development Officer Kattankulathur Block Development Office Kattankulathur, Chengalpattu District. .. Respondent

¶11

Prayer:- Contempt petition filed under under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act to punish the respondent herein for the wilful disobedience to the direction issued by this Court in W.P.No.9193 of 2023 dated 27.03.2023.

¶12

For Petitioner : No appearance For Respondent : Ms.E.Ranganayaki Additional Government Pleader

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

This Contempt Petition is filed to respondent herein for the wilful

¶15

disobedience to the direction issued by this Court in W.P.No.9193 of 2023

¶16

dated 27.03.2023. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

¶18

RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN, J.

¶19

rgr

¶20

By order dated 27.03.2023, this Court passed an order which reads as

¶21

follows -

¶22

4. Learned Government Advocate seeks time to ascertain the Survey Numbers. Since the petitioner is the owner of the land and patta is also stands in his name, I am inclined to pass a direction, directing the 4^th respondent to pass orders on the representation made by the petitioner dated 14.03.2023 and also not to lay the road in the patta land of the petitioner, without follow due process of law and dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 14.03.2023 within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶23

and this contempt petition has been filed alleging non-compliance of the order

¶24

of this Court.

¶25

The learned Additional Government Pleader produced a copy of letter

¶26

dated 06.03.2024 bearing Ref.No.e/f/vz;/745-2024-M1. wherein it is stated

¶27

as follows -

¶28

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

¶29

////////////////nkYk; fpuhk eph;thf mYtyh;. m";R{h; Cuhl;rp 08.03.2023 ehspl;l fojj;jpy; kDjhuuhy; bjhptpf;fg;gl;l rh;nt vz; 264-17 rpbkd;l; fhd;fPhpl; rhiy mikf;ftpy;iybad;Wk;. muRf;F brhe;jkhd epyj;jpy; kl;Lnk rh;nt vz;/264-3y; jhd; rhiy mikf;fg;gl;Ls;sjhf bjhptpj;Js;shh;/ kDjhuUf;F brhe;jkhd rh;nt

¶30

¶31

vz;/264-7y; bfhz;l epy msit vz;zpy; vt;tpj tHf;Fk; brd;id cah;ePjpkd;wj;jpy; bjhlutpy;iy vdf; Fwpg;gpl;Ls;shh;/

¶32

ghh;it 5y; fhZk; kDjhuhpd; fojj;jpy; rh;nt vz;/264-3 rhiy mikg;gjhf brhy;ypbfhz;L vdJ fzth; bgahpy; cs;s rh;nt vz; 264-17 bfhz;l epyj;jpy; rhiy mikj;jjhf Twp kD mspj;Js;shh;/

¶33

It is further stated that there is no encroachment on the pathway however the pathway is only on the Government land in Survey No.264/3.

¶34

Recording the above said submission, this Contempt Petition is closed.

¶35

12.03.2024

¶36

Index :Yes/No Internet :Yes/No Rgr To

¶37

The Block Development Officer Kattankulathur Block Development Office Kattankulathur, Chengalpattu District.

¶38

RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN, J.

¶39

rgr

¶40

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

¶41

¶42

Cont P.No.2543 of 2023 in W.P.No.9193 of 2023

¶43

12.03.2024

¶44

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

Sumathi v. Mr.Venkataramakrishnan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumathi v. Mr.Venkataramakrishnan

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

Veeramani Vs Raja

M/S.Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Kalaiselvi

M/S. United India Insurance Company Limited Vs a Palanisamy(died)

M.Kannaiyan @ Ragavan@Cannayane(Died) Vs Smt.Sagunthala

Sibin Thomas Vs M/S.Aggarwal Transport Organisation

C.Karthikeyan Vs the Managing Director