Disposed¶41

Aramirtham v. N.Muthukumaran

Madras HC13 Jul 2026CONT P/1644/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court closes contempt petition Cont. P. No.1644 of 2022 (Aramirtham v. N.Muthukumaran, Tahsildar, Alathur Taluk) after Tahsildar's compliance report dated 16.12.2024 showed removal of encroachments ordered by writ order dated 30.09.2021 in WP No.31241 of 2018; Land Encroachment Act 1905 S.7/Form-7 notices; water body restoration (724.6 Mtr; 072.30 Ares) reaching Aladi Eri, Survey No.138; no punishment imposed; liberty to petitioner for other remedies.

What did the court decide?

No punitive relief; contempt petition closed following the Tahsildar's compliance report, with liberty to the petitioner to pursue appropriate remedy in accordance with law. ¶41

Aramirtham Vs N.Muthukumaran — Contempt of Court | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

Cont. P. No.1644 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 13.07.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI,

¶6

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN

¶9

Cont. P. No.1644 of 2022

¶10

Aramirtham .. Petitioner

¶11

-vs-

¶12

N.Muthukumaran Tahsildar, Alathur Taluk, Perambalur District 621 653. .. Respondent

¶13

Prayer: Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act to punish the respondent for wilful disobedience and sheer negligence from complying with the order dated 30.09.2021 in WP No.31241 of 2018.

¶14

For Petitioner : Ms.D.E.Anisree Sangavi For Respondent : Mr.Mohammed Fayaz Ali Govt. Pleader * * * * *

¶15

ORDER

¶16

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

¶17

This contempt petition has been filed alleging non-compliance of

¶18

the order dated 30.09.2021 passed in WP No.31241 of 2018.

¶19

Page 1 of 6

¶20

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

¶21

Cont. P. No.1644 of 2022

¶22

The Tahsildar vide compliance report dated 16.12.2024 had

¶23

given the details regarding removal of encroachments, which are as

¶24

follows:

¶25

“ Hence it is submitted that as directed by the Hon'ble High Court for removal of Encroachments as found in the demised property, the Jurisdictional Revenue Inspector, Koothur Firca has caused Notice U/s.7 of the Land Encroachment Act, 1905, in respect of Patta Lands in Survey Nos.156/14 & 156/15, in which Sugarcane Crop has been cultivated. Furthermore the Revenue Inspector, Koothur Firca has also caused another Form-7 Notice in the above Act to the remaining Encroachers, directing them to remove the Encroachments by way of Crop cultivation within 15days. For the same the concerned persons have not given any objections. Hence on 20.09.2024 and 21.09.2024 in the presence of Revenue Tahsildar, Afathur Taluk, Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, Taluk Deputy Surveyor, Revenue Inspector, Koothur Firca, V.A.O., Sillakudi (South) Village and with the assistance of Police Officials, Field Inspection was made and the Encroachments, found in the water bodies as in-detail as per the Village Field Measurement Book were removed. 7. It is submitted that the details regarding the encroachments as found in the Patta Lands, removal of the same by making in-detail and the Crops cultivated in the water bodies are given below

¶26

Sl.No.	Survey No.	Total Extent in Hectares	Patta No. & Name of the Pattadhars	As per Hon’ble High Court order, creation of in- detail in the water bodies Length in Meter	As per Hon’ble High Court order, creation of in-detail in the water bodies Extent in Sq.Mtr.	As per the Village Field Measureme nt Book, the details of Crops cultivated in the in- detail in the water body
1.	156/5	0.14.50	1723,	25.2 Mtr.	00025	Tillage

¶27

Page 2 of 6

¶28

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

¶29

¶30

Cont. P. No.1644 of 2022

¶31

			Ilayaraja, S/oMani			(cHtil)
2.	156/6	0.16.00	. 843, Ilayaraja, S/o.Mani and 3 others	25.4 Mtr	00025	Tapiaco
3.	151/6	0.58.50	277, Rengarasu, S/o.Sembuday ar	32.2 Mtr	00032	Yard, Cattlefeed cultivation
4.	156/14	0.24.00	843, Ilayaraja, S/o.Mani and 3 others	42.2 Mtr	00042	Sugarcane cultivation
5.	156/15	0.24.50	843, Ilayaraja, S/o.Mani and 3 others	38.2 Mtr	00038	Sugarcane cultivation
6.	156/16A	0.09.50	114, Subbaiya, S/o.Kumarasa my and 5	10 Mtr	00010	Tillage
			others
7.	151/13	0.24.50	Chinnammal, W/o.Chellappil lai and 2	44.8 Mtr	00045	Tillage
			others
8.	151/11C	0.63.50	997, Kandasamy, S/o.Velayutha m and 3 others	52.0 Mtr	00052	Cattlefeed
9.	152/4	0.54.00	1268, 1)Arumugam, 2) Selvarasu, both Sons of Kandasamy	91.8 Mtr	00092	Sugarcane cultivate, Yard
10.	152/5	0.17.00	1104, Vembu, W/o.Nagaraj	48.0 Mtr	00048	Tillage
11.	152/9A	0.19.50	227, Sembaiya, S/o.Ramasam	24.4 Mtr	00024	Tillage
12.	152/9B	0.18.00	y 983, Jothi, W/o.Kandasa my	23.4 Mtr	00023	Tillage
13.	152/9C	0.16.00	1081, Jothi, W/o.Kandasa my and 2 others	28.8 Mtr	00029	Tillage
14.	153	0.39.50	Govt. Assessed Punjai Tharisu	196 Mtr	00196	Kambu cultivation, Tillage

¶32

Page 3 of 6

¶33

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

¶34

				*Cont. P. No*	*.1644 of 2022*
15.	154/3	0.03.00	1269 1) Arumugam 2) Selvarasu both sons of Kandasamy 10.0 Mtr	00010	Tharisu
16.	154/4	0.26.0	Sri Vinayagar Koil 32.2 Mtr	00032	Pathway
			*724.6*	*07230*
			*Mtr*	*sq.mtr*

¶35

7. Hence it is submitted that in the above Survey Numbers as per the Report of the Learned Advocate Commissioner of the Hon'ble High Court, as found in the Village Field Measurement Book, water body indetail in a depth of 1 Mtr. and a breadth of 1 Mtr., approximately in a length of 724.6 Mtr. in an extent of 072.30 Ares, the water body in-detail was created and the water body was made to reach and mingle with the Aladi Eri comprised in Survey Nd.138. The order of this Hon'ble court has been complied to its letter and spirit and the encroachment has been removed.”

¶36

The Tahsildar has found encroachments in the patta lands which have been removed with the assistance of the police officials and therefore, the order passed by this Court to inspect and remove the encroachments has been complied with.

¶37

In view of the compliance report filed by the Tahsildar, nothing survives for adjudication in this contempt petition.

¶38

Page 4 of 6

¶39

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

¶40

Cont. P. No.1644 of 2022

¶41

Accordingly, the contempt petition is closed. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to avail appropriate remedy in accordance with law, if so advised.

¶42

(SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, CJ.) (G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.) 13.07.2026

¶43

Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No

¶44

sra

¶45

Page 5 of 6

¶46

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

¶47

Cont. P. No.1644 of 2022