R.Sennimalai Gounder (Deceased) Through LRs and another v. Ms. Gandhimathi and another

Madras HC29 Apr 2025CONT P/448/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt of court; willful disobedience of High Court order dated 16.09.2014 in W.P.No. 16396 of 2013; patta rejection contrary to directions; assignment condition; purchase not in violation confirmed by Supreme Court; Panjami land; Government power to cancel assignment; Tahsildar Annur Division, Coimbatore; RDO suo motu impleaded as 3rd respondent; statutory notice returnable 17.11.2025; adjourned; interim/prima facie order; Madras High Court, single Judge D. Bharatha Chakravarthy.

What did the court decide?

Interim order only: Mr.Ramakrishnan, Revenue Development Officer, added suo motu as 3rd respondent to the Contempt Petition; statutory notice ordered to be issued on the respondents, returnable by 17.11.2025; matter to be called on 17.11.2025. Final adjudication on contempt deferred. ¶¶41

R.Sennimalai Gounder (Deceased) Through LRs and another Vs Ms. Gandhimathi and another — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶41

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents/contemnors committed willful disobedience of the order of the Hon'ble High Court in W.P.No. 16396 of 2013 dated 16.09.2014, warranting initiation of contempt proceedings and punishment. +1 more

¶¶20

Ratio / Principle

Prima facie, the Court is unable to accept the State's contention (that the land appears to be Panjami land and the Government may protect it/pass orders on the very same assignment, with power to cancel the assignment if alienation contravenes its condition): the argument should have been raised before the Honourable Supreme Court of India in the SLP or in the Review, and cannot now be raised in the Contempt petition in the teeth of the earlier findings.

¶¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy), 13-10-2025 — CONT P No. 448 of 2025 (contempt petition): Petitioners (Ganesh and Subramanian, sons of late R. Sennimalai Gounder, the former through LRs of the deceased) seek contempt proceedings against Ms. Gandhimathi (erstwhile Tahsildar, Annur Division) and Ms. Nithilavalli (present Tahsildar) for alleged willful disobedience of the order dated 16.09.2014 in W.P.No. 16396 of 2013, in which the learned single Judge had found the petitioner's purchase not violative of assignment conditions, as confirmed by the Honourable Supreme Court. Recounting that the Tahsildar's fresh rejection of patta was set aside as contrary to directions and that the RDO was directed to pass orders on issue of patta, the Court recorded the State's submission (Mr.Wilson, Special Senior Counsel) that the land appears to be Panjami land and that the Government may cancel the assignment itself if alienation breaches the assignment condition. Prima facie declining to entertain the plea — it should have been raised before the Supreme Court in the SLP or Review and cannot now be raised in contempt in the teeth of the earlier findings — the Court added Mr.Ramakrishnan, RDO, suo motu as 3rd respondent, ordered statutory notice returnable by 17.11.2025 and posted the matter to that date. Interim order; the contempt question remains open.

¶1

CONT P No. 448 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 13-10-2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

¶6

CONT P No. 448 of 2025

¶7

R.Sennimalai Gounder (Deceased)

¶8

Through LRs and another Ganesh, Son of Late R.Sennimalai Gounder, 3/72-A, Tank Veedhi, Vellanaipatti, Annur Taluk, Coimbatore District, Tamil Nadu

¶9

2. Subramanian,

¶10

Son of Late R.Sennimalai Gounder, 3/72-A, Tank Veedhi, Vellanaipatti, Annur Taluk, Coimbatore District, Tamil Nadu

¶11

Petitioner(s)

¶12

¶13

Ms. Gandhimathi and another Erstwhile Tahsildar of Annur Division, Now working at Collector's Office, Coimbatore Dist. Tamil Nadu.

¶14

2.Ms. Nithilavalli,

¶15

Tahsildar, Annur Division, Coimbatore District, Tamil Nadu.

¶16

Contemnor(s)

¶17

CONT P No. 448 of 2025

¶18

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

¶19

CONT P No. 448 of 2025

¶20

PRAYER: To initiate contempt proceedings against the Respondents/Respondent and punish him for the willful disobedience of the order of the Hon'ble High Court in W.P.No. 16396 of 2013 dated 16.09.2014

¶21

CONT P No. 448 of 2025

¶22

For Petitioner(s): M/s. M.Yogesh Kanna, Manoj Kumar.A, R.Sridhar, J.Kanimozhi

¶23

For Contemnor(s): Dr.S.Surya, Addl Government Pleader Takes Notice For Respondent.

¶24

ORDER

¶25

In this case, a series of orders have been passed. The learned single Judge

¶26

has specifically found that the purchase of the petitioner is not in violation of

¶27

any assignment condition which stood confirmed by the Honourable Supreme Court of India. At this juncture, the Tahsildar has passed an order once again

¶28

rejecting the patta on the ground that the purchase of the petitioner is in violation of the condition. When this Court had pointed out that the same is directly contrary to the directions, the said order was set aside and it was pleaded by the Additional Advocate General that it is the RDO who has to pass

¶29

the order. Accordingly, after once again making a finding that the Tahsildar’s findings will run to the order of the learned single Judge, this Court had directed

¶30

the RDO to pass orders on issue of patta. Under the said circumstances, today

¶31

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

¶32

CONT P No. 448 of 2025

¶33

Mr.Wilson, Special Senior Counsel engaged on behalf of the State would submit

¶34

that the land appears to be Panjami land and therefore they have got every right

¶35

to protect the same at any cost and it is only in that context they want to pass orders with reference to the very same assignment and if the alienation is done contrary to the assignment condition, the Government has power to cancel the assignment itself.

¶36

Prima facie, I am unable to accept the said argument as the same

¶37

should have been raised before the Honourable Supreme Court of India in the

¶38

SLP or in the Review. The same cannot now be raised in the Contempt petition

¶39

in the teeth of the earlier findings. In view thereof, Mr.Ramakrishnan, Revenue Development Officer, suo motu has been added as the 3rd respondent in the

¶40

Contempt Petition.

¶41