The petitioner filed a contempt petition alleging disobedience of a prior order directing removal of encroachments. The court dismissed the petition after noting that the land in question is classified as Natham land and does not vest in the Government, thereby precluding the order for removal of encroachment.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Cont.P.(MD) No.1043 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 30.08.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI
Cont.P.(MD) No.1043 of 2021 and
W.P.(MD)No.24235 of 2018
S.Sakthivel
... Petitioner
-vs-
1.Saravanan, The Tahsildar, Dindigul East Taluk, Dindigul District. 2.Malar Vannan, The Block Development Officer, Dindigul, Dindigul District.
... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 11 of Contempt of Courts Act, to punish the Contemnors for their wanton and wilful disobedience of the order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.24235 of 2018 dated 21.10.2019.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Thalaimuthuarasu For Respondents : Mr.P.Thilakkumar Government Pleader
O R D E R
[Order of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.]
Mr.P.Thilakkumar, learned Government Pleader takes notice for the
respondents.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _____________ Page 1 of 3_
Cont.P.(MD) No.1043 of 2021
2.Complaining disobedience of the order dated 21.10.2019, this
Contempt Petition has been filed.
3.The grievance of the petitioner is that the encroachments have not been removed.
4.The Tahsildar, Dindigul, has filed a counter wherein, it is stated that the land in Survey No.805/8, Old Survey No.69/1, is classified as Natham and it is in the enjoyment of the respondents 5 and 6 in the Writ Petition for several years. Being natham land, if it is occupied as house site or backyard, the same will not vest in the Government in order to enable the Government to seek removal of encroachment.
5.In the light of the above, we do not see any cause for proceeding with this Contempt Petition against the respondent. The Contempt Petition is therefore, dismissed. No costs.
[R.S.M., J.] [L.V.G., J.] 30.08.2024
NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes Mrn/Sml
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _____________ Page 2 of 3_
Cont.P.(MD) No.1043 of 2021
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J. and L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.
Mrn/Sml
To
1.The Tahsildar, Dindigul East Taluk, Dindigul District.
Cont.P.(MD) No.1043 of 2021
30.08.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _____________ Page 3 of 3_
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the respondents willfully disobeyed the order dated 21.10.2019 by failing to remove encroachments?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
S.Sakthivel
Saravanan, The Tahsildar, Dindigul East Taluk, Dindigul District
Malar Vannan, The Block Development Officer, Dindigul, Dindigul District
R.SUBRAMANIAN
L.VICTORIA GOWRI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
