Dismissed¶30

Muthu v. Tmt.M.Aruna, IAS

Madras HC23 Feb 2026CONT P(MD)/3073/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

contempt petition; Contempt of Courts Act 1971 Section 11; wilful disobedience; breach of writ direction; W.P.(MD)No.13063 of 2023 order dated 28.01.2025; petitioner did not file writ petition; representative capacity; aggrieved villagers; encroachment Survey No.199/2 Nedungudi Village; A Register column 12 kali kovil; Kovil poramboke; two Kali temples; factual disputes not resolvable in contempt proceedings; District Collector Pudukkottai; Tahsildar Thirumayam Taluk; contempt petition closed; connected sub application closed.

What did the court decide?

None; the contempt petition and the connected sub application were closed. ¶30

Muthu Vs Tmt.M.Aruna, IAS — Contempt of Court | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

1 CONT.P.(MD)NO.3073 OF 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 23.02.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE R.KALAIMATHI

¶8

CONT.P.(MD)No.3073 of 2025 IN W.P.(MD)No.13063 of 2023

¶9

Muthu ... Petitioner / Petitioner

¶10

Vs.

¶11

Tmt.M.Aruna,IAS, District Collector, Pudukkottai.

¶12

Mr.Varadharajan, Tahsildar, Thirumayam Taluk, Pudukkottai. ... Contemnors /Respondents

¶13

Prayer: Contempt petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, to punish the contemnors / respondents for their willful disobedience of the order of this Court in W.P.(MD)No.13063 of 2023 dated 28.01.2025.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.RM.Arun Swaminathan

¶15

For Respondents : Mr.A.Baskaran, Additional Government Pleader.

¶16

¶17

1/4

¶18

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

¶19

2 CONT.P.(MD)NO.3073 OF 2025

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

(Order of the Court was delivered by G.R.SWAMINATHAN,J)

¶22

Heard both sides.

¶23

This petition has been filed alleging that the direction given vide order dated 28.01.2025 in W.P(MD)No.13063 of 2023 has been breached. Admittedly, the petitioner herein did not file the writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner would claim that the writ petition was filed in a representative capacity and therefore, the contempt petition can be filed by any of the aggrieved villagers. According to the petitioner, there is an encroachment in survey No. 199/2 in Nedungudi Village. We wanted to know how the survey number has been classified in the revenue record. In the revenue record, it has been mentioned in column 12 in “A” Register is mentioned as kali kovil. From the description set out in the revenue record, we can can safely infer that this is Kovil poramboke. There are two temples attributed to Kali. We fail to understand as to how one temple alone can be characterised as encroachment.

¶24

2/4

¶25

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

¶26

3 CONT.P.(MD)NO.3073 OF 2025

¶27