T.Ramaraj v. Gopinath
Case brief
What is this about?
Encroachment removal; Sirukulam Kanmoi; Survey No.54/4; water body / irrigation tank; writ of mandamus; Article 226 Constitution of India; Section 11 Contempt of Courts Act; willful disobedience; contempt against Tahsildar and Block Development Officer; undertaking to comply within six months; rehabilitation of below-poverty-line encroachers; contempt petition closed; writ petition allowed; liberty to revive contempt; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; T.Ramaraj v. Gopinath, Tahsildar, Ilaiyangudi Taluk and Balasubramani, BDO; respondents include District Collector, RDO Sivagangai, N.Kumar, P.Kumar.
What did the court decide?
Contempt Petition closed on recording the Additional Advocate General's undertaking of full compliance with the encroachment-removal direction within six months; Writ Petition allowed; liberty reserved to the petitioner to revive the contempt petition by Miscellaneous Petition if the undertaking is not complied with; no costs.