Dismissed¶49

Dhanakotti, v. Mr. Prasanth and 3 others

Madras HC6 Feb 2026CONT P/3221/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: contempt petition closed; Contempt of Courts Act 1971 Section 11; willful disobedience; WP No.8375 of 2025 order dated 11.03.2025; bus stop relocation 9 meters; road expansion two lane to four lane; 10 feet gap; access to property; Government Poromboke Land; Sathapputhur Village; Vanapuram Taluk; Kallakurichi District; District Collector; Revenue Divisional Officer; Thasildhar; BDO; Madras High Court; V. Lakshminarayanan; 06.02.2026.

What did the court decide?

Contempt Petition stands closed without imposing any punishment; respondents directed not to obstruct the petitioner from entering into his property; appearance of the fourth respondent dispensed with. ¶49

Dhanakotti, Vs Mr. Prasanth and 3 others — Contempt of Court | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶49

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents' shifting of the Bus Stop to a new site approximately 9 metres from the site stated in the instructions dated 11.03.2025 constitutes willful disobedience of the order dated 11.03.2025 in WP No.8375 of 2025 amounting to contempt. +1 more

¶35

Court's answer

Taking into consideration that the road on which the Bus Stop is situated is being expanded in public interest from two lanes to four lanes, the respondents had decided to construct the Bus Stop at a place convenient for passengers after the expansion, rather than at the place stated on 11.03.2025.

¶36

Ratio / Principle

A perusal of the photograph produced with measurements shows that there will be at least 10 feet gap (approximately) between the new place identified for construction of the Bus Stop and the entrance of the petitioner's property.

¶41

Key takeaways

It is admitted that the Bus Stop has been constructed on Government Poromboke Land.ratio¶41
The petitioner is certainly entitled to access to his property, but he is not entitled to demand the extent of the access.ratio¶41
The respondents shall not obstruct the petitioner from entering into his property, and the Contempt Petition stands closed (no punishment for contempt imposed).ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (V. Lakshminarayanan J., 06.02.2026) closed, without punishing, Cont.P. No.3221 of 2025 filed under S.11, Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, alleging willful disobedience of the order dated 11.03.2025 in WP No.8375 of 2025 because the Bus Stop at Sathapputhur Village, Vanapuram Taluk, Kallakurichi District was being shifted about 9 metres from the site stated in the Tahsildar's instructions. The Court accepted that the road is being widened in public interest from two lanes to four, so the original site would fall in the middle of the road; a photograph produced by the Special Government Pleader showed at least a 10-foot gap between the new site and the petitioner's property entrance, the Bus Stop admittedly standing on Government Poromboke Land. The petitioner is entitled to access but not entitled to demand its extent; the respondents were directed not to obstruct his entry, and the fourth respondent's appearance was dispensed with.

¶1

Cont. P. No.3221 of 2025 vIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 06.02.2026

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN

¶5

Contempt Petition No.3221 of 2025

¶6

Dhanakotti

¶7

S/o. Thoppai Gounder, Sathapputhur Village, Vanapuram Taluk, Kallakurichi District.

... Petitioner

Versus

1. Mr. Prasanth

The District Collector, Office of the District Collector, Collectorate, Kallakurichi District.

¶12

2.Mr. Lourdusamy, The Revenue Divisional Officer, Office of Revenue Divisional Officer, Katchery Road, Kallakurichi Town and District.

¶13

3.Mr. Venkatesan, The Thasildhar, Taluk Office, Vanapuram Taluk, Kallakurichi District.

¶14

4.Mr. Jagannathan,

¶15

The Block Development Officer, BDO Office, Rishivanthiyam Block, Kallakurichi District.

¶16

… Respondents

¶17

1/8

¶18

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

¶19

PRAYER:

¶20

Cont. P. No.3221 of 2025

¶21

PRAYER: Petitions filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act,

¶22

1971, to punish the respondents for contempt of Court for willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court dated 11.03.2025 passed in WP No.8375 of 2025.

¶23

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Raj Prasanna

¶24

For Respondents : Mr.Haja Naziruddin, Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr.M.Shajahan, Special Government Pleader

¶25

O R D E R

¶26

Alleging non compliance of the order dated 11.03.2025 in WP

¶27

No.8375 of 2025, the present petition has been presented.

¶28

The petitioner had come forward with the Writ Petition calling upon

¶29

the District Collector, Kallakurichi District, to conduct an enquiry and to

¶30

forbear the fifth respondent from going ahead with the construction of a Bus Stop at Sathapputhur Village, Vanapuram Taluk, Kallakurichi District.

¶31

2/8

¶32

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

¶33

Cont. P. No.3221 of 2025 3. This Court recorded the instructions that were given by the then

¶34

Tahsildar, Vanapuram Taluk, Kallakurichi District dated 11.03.2025 and disposed of the Writ Petition.

¶35

The petitioner alleges that instead of constructing the Bus Stop in the same place as stated in the instructions dated 11.03.2025, the respondents are shifting the Bus Stop to a new place, at the distance of 9 meters approximately, from the earlier site. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present Contempt.

¶36

When the matter came up for admission, Mr.M.Shajahan, learned Special Government Pleader, took time to get instructions. He reported on 23.01.2026, that the road on which the Bus Stop is situated is being expanded in public interest from a two lane one to a four lane one. He states that if the Bus Stop is constructed in the same place as stated on 11.03.2025, it will be bang in the middle of the road. Taking into consideration the expansion of the road the respondents had decided to construct the Bus Stop in a place which would be convenient for passengers post the expansion.

¶37

3/8

¶38

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

¶39

Cont. P. No.3221 of 2025 6. Mr.R.Raj Prasanna stated that if the Bus Stop is shifted from the

¶40

existing place to the present place where it is being constructed, it will prevent the access of the petitioner to his property. Hence, I called upon Mr.M.Shajahan to produce photographs to show the area of construction.

¶41

Mr.M.Shajahan has produced the photograph with the measurements. A perusal of the same shows that there will be at least 10 feet gap (approximately), between the new place identified for construction of the Bus Stop and the entrance of the petitioner’s property. Admittedly, the Bus Stop has been constructed on a Government Poromboke Land. The petitioner will certainly be entitled to access, but he will not be entitled to demand the extent of the access to his property.

¶42

8.For ready understanding, the photograph produced by Mr.M.Shajahan is scanned and extracted hereunder:

¶43

4/8

¶44

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

¶45

Cont. P. No.3221 of 2025

¶46

5/8

¶47

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