Disposed¶34

A.Shanmugam v. S.Visakan

Madras HC22 Apr 2026CONT P(MD)/1363/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: contempt petition; willful disobedience; Section 11 Contempts of Courts Act 1971; compliance with writ order; encroachment removal; Tahsildar report; photographs; Dindigul; Reddiarchathiram; S.Visakan District Collector; Kasi Selvi Revenue Divisional Officer; Vadivel Murugan Tahsildar Dindigul West Taluk; Vijayalakshmi Block Development Officer; W.P(MD)No.9972 of 2020; order dated 25.08.2020; encroachments removed 26.10.2021; fresh writ petition impleading encroachers; petition closed; Madurai Bench Madras High Court; G.R.Swaminathan J.; R.Poornima J.; 22.04.2026.

What did the court decide?

No punitive action against the contemnors; contempt petition closed on acceptance that the order in W.P(MD)No.9972 of 2020 has been complied with, with liberty noted for the petitioner to pursue a fresh writ petition impleading any remaining encroachers.

A.Shanmugam Vs S.Visakan — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether the order passed by this Court in W.P(MD)No.9972 of 2020 dated 25.08.2020 has been complied with by the contemnors/respondents, i.e., whether willful disobedience warranting punishment subsists.

¶28

Court's answer

The Court is satisfied that its order has been complied with; the jurisdictional Tahsildar's report indicates the encroachments in question were removed as early as 26.10.2021, and the enclosed photographs bear this out.

¶29

Ratio / Principle

This Contempt Petition stands closed.

¶34

Key takeaways

Counsel for the petitioner states encroachments persist even as on date; if that be so, it is open to the petitioner to file a fresh writ petition on the same cause of action, by impleading the encroachers as parties.obiter¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Contempt Petition (Cont P(MD)No.1363 of 2021) under Section 11 of the Contempts of Courts Act, 1971, filed by A.Shanmugam to punish four Dindigul district officials — the District Collector (S.Visakan), Revenue Divisional Officer (Kasi Selvi), Tahsildar, Dindigul West Taluk (Vadivel Murugan) and Block Development Officer, Reddiarchathiram (Vijayalakshmi) — for alleged willful disobedience of the order passed in W.P(MD)No.9972 of 2020 dated 25.08.2020. Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; order made by G.R.Swaminathan J. sitting with R.Poornima J.; dated 22.04.2026. The Court expressed satisfaction that its order had been complied with: the report of the jurisdictional Tahsildar indicated the encroachments in question were removed as early as 26.10.2021, and photographs enclosed with the report bore this out. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that encroachments persist even as on date; the Court observed that, if so, it remains open to the petitioner to file a fresh writ petition on the same cause of action by impleading the encroachers as parties. The Contempt Petition stands closed; no contemnor was punished.

¶1

Cont P(MD)No.1363 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 22.04.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA Cont P(MD)No.1363 of 2021

¶8

¶9

W.P(MD)No.9972 of 2020

¶10

A.Shanmugam

¶11

... Petitioner / Petitioner

¶12

Vs.

¶13

1.S.Visakan, District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

¶14

2.Kasi Selvi, Revenue Divisional Officer, Dindigul.

¶15

3.Vadivel Murugan, Tahsildar, Dindigul West Taluk, Dindigul District.

¶16

4.Vijayalakshmi, Block Development Officer Reddiarchathiram, Dindigul District.

... Contemnors /

Respondents

1/4

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

¶21

Cont P(MD)No.1363 of 2021

¶22

Prayer:

¶23

Prayer: Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of Contempts of Courts Act, 1971 to punish the contemnors / respondents for willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court in W.P(MD)No.9972 of 2020 dated 25.08.2020.

¶24

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Panneerselvam For Respondents : Mr.G.V.Vairam Santhosh Additional Government Pleader

¶25

ORDER

¶26

(Order of the Court was made by G.R.Swaminathan J.)

¶27

Heard both sides.

¶28

2.We are satisfied that the order of this Court has been complied

¶29

with. The report of the jurisdictional Tahsildar indicates that the encroachments in question were removed as early as on 26.10.2021. Photographs enclosed along with the report bear this out.

¶30

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner states that even as on date, there are encroachments. If that be so, it is open to the petitioner to file a fresh writ petition on the same cause of action, by impleading the encroachers as parties.

¶31

2/4

¶32

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

¶33

Cont P(MD)No.1363 of 2021

¶34