Disposed

R.Jayakumar and another v. Santhosh Kumar Yadav and 3 others

Madras HC23 Aug 2024CONT P/381/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt petition alleging non-compliance with an order directing a Taluk Surveyor to measure land taken for road formation. Status report showed compensation received, survey completed and excess land taken over by NHAI; contempt petition closed, no costs.

What did the court decide?

None granted beyond closure of the contempt petition; compliance reported as complete.

R.Jayakumar and another Vs Santhosh Kumar Yadav and 3 others — Contempt of Court | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATE : 24.03.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

CONTEMPT PETITION NO.381 of 2023

¶7

R.Jayakumar

¶8

V.R.Gowrisankar

¶9

.. Petitioners

¶10

- Vs -

¶11

Mr.Santhosh Kumar Yadav,

¶12

The National Highways Authority of India, Represented by its Chairman, N.H.A.I Head Quarters, G-5 & 6, Sector 10, Dwarka, New Delhi-110 075.

¶13

2.Mr.Aravind Kumar,

¶14

The Project Manager, National Highways Authority of India, Door No.212-3/D3-1, Srinagar Colony, Narasowthipatti, Salem.

¶15

Mr.P.Murugesan,

¶16

The Competent Authority, Special District Revenue Officer, (Land Acquisition), National Highways No.179A and 68, Salem-636 004.

¶17

Thiru.S.Karmegam, The District Collector, Salem.

¶18

.. Respondents

¶19

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

¶20

¶21

Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act to

¶22

punish the respondent for wilful disobedience of the order passed by this Court in

¶23

W.P. No.19769 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022.

¶24

For Petitioners : Mr.K.V.Dhanabalan for M/s.Fenn Walter Associates For Respondents : Mr. E.Veda Bagath Singh, Special Government Pleader

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

This petition has been filed by the petitioner praying this Court to punish

¶27

the respondent for wilful disobedience of the order passed by this Court in W.P.

¶28

No.19769 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022.

¶29

This Court vide order dated 01.09.2022 in W.P.No.19769 of 2022 had

¶30

directed the respondents 3 & 4 to depute a qualified Taluk Surveyor to measure the subject property in the presence of the 2^nd respondent and the petitioners therein and find out the excess land utilized by the 2^nd respondent for road formation. However, the said order was not complied with by the respondent.

¶31

Hence, the present contempt petition has been filed.

¶32

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

¶33

¶34

A perusal of the Status Report filed by learned Special Government

¶35

Pleader on behalf of the 3^rd respondent reveals that petitioners have received the compensation amount towards the subject acquisition. Further, the process of surveying is completed and a report is also furnished to the National Highways Authority of India wherein, the excess land utilized for road formation was taken over by the National Highways Authority.

¶36

In view of the above, this Contempt Petition stands closed. There shall

¶37

be no order as to costs.

¶38

24.03.2023

¶39

Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No NHS

¶40

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

M.DHANDAPANI, J.

NHS

CONT. PTN. NO.381 of 2023

¶45

24.03.2023

¶46

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

¶47

¶48

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

R.Jayakumar and another v. Santhosh Kumar Yadav and 3 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Jayakumar and another v. Santhosh Kumar Yadav and 3 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Charoen Pokphand (India) Vs The Chairman and Managing

D.Nalini Vs The Chief Manager

Vennila Vs District Collector

R.Vasantha Vs The Commissioner

R.Raghuraman Vs the District Registrar of Societies

Perumal Vs the Branch Manager