Disposed¶21

R.Rajesh Kanna v. Ranjeet Singh IAS

Madras HC28 Aug 2025CONT P(MD)/2325/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court, Madurai Bench; CONT P(MD) No.2325 of 2025; decided 28.08.2025 by G.R.Swaminathan and B.Pugalendhi, JJ.; contempt under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act for alleged breach of undertaking in WP(MD)No.5047 of 2025 (encroachment removal, Survey No.370/1, Koduvilarpatti Village, Theni Taluk); no encroachment found, only seema karuvelam trees removed; petition closed with liberty to revive; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition closed without any punitive order; no costs; liberty left to the petitioner to revive the petition if the undertaking is breached again. ¶21

R.Rajesh Kanna Vs Ranjeet Singh IAS — Contempt of Court | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 28.08.2025

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶5

CONT P(MD) No.2325 of 2025

¶6

R.Rajesh Kanna ... Petitioner

¶7

vs.

¶8

1.Mr.Ranjeeth Singh, I.A.S., District Collector / The Monitoring Committee, Theni District, Theni. 2.Tmt.I.Mahalakshmi, District Revenue Officer, District Revenue Office, Theni District, Theni.

¶9

3.Mr.STO.Mayilvaganam, Assistant Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Office of the Assistant Executive Engineer, Theni District.

¶10

4.Suresh, Tahsildar, Theni, Theni District.

¶11

5.Velmurugan, Administrative Officer, Koduvilarpatti Panchayat, Koduvilarpatti, Theni. ... Respondents

¶12

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

¶13

¶14

Prayer : Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, to punish the contemnors for their deliberate and willful disobedience of the order of this Court made in WP(MD)No.5047 of 2025 dated 25.02.2025.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Sivachandran For Respondents : Mr.A.Kannan, Additional Government Pleader for R1 to R5

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The petitioner herein had filed WP(MD)No.5047 of 2025 for clearing the encroachments in Survey No.370/1, Koduvilarpatti Village, Theni Taluk. The respondents undertook to remove the encroachments, if any. Contending that the undertaking given before this Court has not been complied with, the present contempt petition has been filed.

¶18

2.When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that after conducting survey, they could not notice any encroachment. Only some seema karuvelam trees were found and they were also ordered to be removed. We are satisfied that the undertaking given before this Court has not been breached. It is open to the petitioner to revive this contempt petition again if he feels that the undertaking given before this Court is breached again.

¶19

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

¶20

¶21