S.Natarajan, v. Mr. P.N.Sridhar, I.a.S., and 2 others

Madras HC19 Jan 2026CONT P/1135/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras HC contempt petition Cont.P. No.1135 of 2025 (decided 19.01.2026; Manindra Mohan Shrivastava CJ, G.Arul Murugan J): under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act by S.Natarajan against HR & CE officials (P.N.Sridhar, T.Anitha, S.Narasimha Murthy; M.Navaneetham impleaded 03.12.2025) for wilful disobedience of order in WP No.27455 of 2023 dated 20.09.2023 on recovery of 41 cents of land; 30 cents recovered belatedly, balance 11 cents blocked by injunction operating since 2014 in pending civil suit (sub judice); delay causes accepted; authorities cautioned to be vigilant within six months; rule discharged, petition closed, no punishment.

What did the court decide?

Out of the 41 cents of land required to be recovered in compliance of this Court's order, 30 cents have already been recovered, though belatedly. ¶¶33

S.Natarajan, Vs Mr. P.N.Sridhar, I.a.S., and 2 others — Contempt of Court | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

¶¶45

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents wilfully disobeyed the orders of this Court in WP No.27455 of 2023 dated 20.09.2023 (requiring recovery of 41 cents of land) so as to be punished for contempt under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act.

¶¶23

Court's answer

Out of the 41 cents of land required to be recovered in compliance of this Court's order, 30 cents have already been recovered, though belatedly.

¶¶33

Ratio / Principle

As regards the balance 11 cents of land, though implementation was delayed, there is clear justification because the matter is sub judice with a civil-court injunction operating; that portion of the order could not be enforced while the Civil Court's order remains in force.

¶¶35

Key takeaways

As far as the balance 30 cents of land is concerned, though steps were initiated they were not brought to a logical conclusion within the time stipulated by the Court; respondents 2, 3 and 4 have come out with certain causes for the delay.ratio¶¶40
The authorities are required to be more vigilant in ensuring conclusion of the proceedings as directed earlier, within the period stipulated by this Court, i.e. six months (admonitory observation; no fresh operative direction issued as the petition is closed).obiter¶¶42

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Coram: Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, CJ and G.Arul Murugan, J.; order made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice) — Cont.P. No.1135 of 2025, decided 19.01.2026. Contempt petition under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act by S.Natarajan seeking punishment of HR & CE officials — P.N.Sridhar, IAS (Commissioner), T.Anitha (Joint Commissioner), S.Narasimha Murthy (Inspector), and M.Navaneetham (Tahsildar, impleaded 03.12.2025) — for wilful disobedience of this Court's order in WP No.27455 of 2023 dated 20.09.2023 requiring recovery of 41 cents of land. Affidavits/status reports showed 30 cents recovered belatedly; the balance 11 cents could not be enforced because an injunction had been operating since 2014 in a civil suit pending before a competent civil court (matter sub judice). For the 30 cents, steps initiated were not concluded within the stipulated time; respondents 2–4 adduced causes of delay. Holding the delay justified as to the 11 cents, noting compliance achieved to the extent possible, admonishing the authorities to be more vigilant within the stipulated six months, the Court was not inclined to proceed further: Rule discharged, petition closed; no punishment imposed.

¶1

Cont.P.No.1135 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 19.01.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,

¶6

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN

¶9

Cont.P. No.1135 of 2025

S.Natarajan

: Petitioner

versus

1.P.N.Sridhar, IAS,

Commissioner HR & CE Department 119, Uthamar Gandhi Salai, Nungambakkam, Chennai 34

¶15

2.T.Anitha, Joint Commissioner, HR & CE Department Sathvachary Post, Vellore 632 009, Presently having office at 308, First Floor, Arcot Road, Kakithapattari, Vellore 632 012

¶16

3.S.Narasimha Murthy, Inspector, HR & CE Department, Tirupathur District 635 601

¶17

4.M.Navaneetham, Tahsildar, Tirupathur

¶18

: Contemnors/Respondents

¶19

(R-4 impleaded as per order dated 03.12.2025)

¶20

Page 1 of 5

¶21

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

¶22

Cont.P.No.1135 of 2025

¶23

Prayer: Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act to punish the respondents for wilfully disobeying the orders of this Court in WP No.27455 of 2023 dated 20.09.2023.

¶24

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Manoj Kumar For Respondents : Mr.P.Kumaresan, Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan, Special Government Pleader and Mr.S.Ravichandran, Additional Government Pleader, for respondents 1 to 3 Mr.E.Vijay Anand, Additional Government Pleader, for respondent No.4

¶25

ORDER

¶26

(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶27

Taking into consideration the allegation in the contempt petition that the order passed by this Court way back on 20.09.2023 was not being complied with, we issued notice to the respondents, initiating contempt proceedings, on a prima facie satisfaction of wilful disobedience of the order passed by this Court.

¶28

When the petition was taken up for hearing today, the following officers were present in court:

¶29

Page 2 of 5

¶30

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

¶31

(i)Mr.P.N.Sridhar, IAS, (First respondent) (ii)Ms.P.Vijaya, (Second respondent) (iii)Mr.S.Narasimhamurthy (Third respondent) (iv)Mr.Navaneetham (Fourth respondent)

¶32

Cont.P.No.1135 of 2025

¶33

The affidavits/status reports which have been filed before this Court by respondents 1 to 3 and the newly added fourth respondent, would reveal that though, belatedly, out of 41 cents of land which were required to be recovered in compliance of the order passed by this Court, 30 cents have already been recovered. As far as the balance 11 cents of land is concerned, it is stated that long before the order was passed by this Court on 20.09.2023, in a civil suit pending before a competent Court of civil jurisdiction, injunction was operating since 2014 and therefore, as long as the order of the Civil Court remains in force, the order passed by this Court in respect of 11 cents of land could not be enforced and the land recovered.

¶34

After having gone through the contents of the affidavits, we

¶35

are of the view that though there was delay in implementation of the order of this Court, insofar as 11 cents of land is concerned, there is a clear justification as the matter is sub judice and an injunction operating.

¶36

Page 3 of 5

¶37

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

¶38

Cont.P.No.1135 of 2025

¶39

As far as the balance 30 cents of land is concerned, we find

¶40

that though steps were initiated, they were not brought to a logical conclusion within the time stipulated by the Court. The respondents 2, 3 and 4 have come out with certain causes for delay.

¶41