Disposed¶29

N.Balasubramaniyan v. Raju

Madras HC23 Feb 2026CONT P(MD)/938/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Cont.P.(MD)No.938 of 2025; contempt petition; Section 11 of Contempt of Courts Act; willful and deliberate disobedience; W.P(MD)No.24932 of 2024 order dated 22.10.2024; Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thiruvidaimaruthur, Thanjavur District; compromise between parties; non-interference with possession and cultivation; Tahsildar order; Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants (Protection) Act; District Collector; appellate authority; re-consideration; Revenue Authorities; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; K.Murali Shankar, J.; petition closed on 23.02.2026.

What did the court decide?

The Contempt Petition was closed without imposing any punishment on the contemnor, after recording that the parties had entered into a compromise whereby the respondent agreed not to interfere with the petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property.

N.Balasubramaniyan Vs Raju — Contempt of Court | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

Cont.P.(MD)No.938 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 23.02.2026

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR

¶6

CONT.P(MD)No.938 of 2025 in W.P(MD)No.24932 of 2024

N.Balasubramaniyan

: Petitioner

Vs.

Raju, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thiruvidaimaruthur, Thanjavur District. : Contemnor

¶11

PRAYER: Contempt Petition is filed under Section 11 of Contempt of Courts Act, to initiate contempt proceedings against the contemnor/respondent for his willful and deliberate disobedience of the order of this Court passed in W.P(MD)No.24932 of 2024, dated 22.10.2024.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.S.R.Anbarasu

¶13

For Respondent : Mr.S.Sankar.

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This Contempt Petition has been filed seeking orders to punish the

¶16

contemnor/respondent for his willful and deliberate disobedience of the order of this Court passed in W.P(MD)No.24932 of 2024, dated 22.10.2024.

¶17

1/4

¶18

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

¶19

Cont.P.(MD)No.938 of 2025

¶20

When the matter is taken up for hearing today, the learned counsel appearing for the contemnor and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that both parties were summoned by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thiruvidaimaruthur Sub Division and after enquiry, he directed the other side not to interfere with the present petitioner's possessions and cultivation of the property in dispute till further orders received from the Revenue Authorities.

¶21

As already observed by this Court, the order earlier passed by the Tahsildar in favour of the petitioner under the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants (Protection) Act, has not been set aside. However, since the other side had preferred a petition before the District Collector, the District Collector, instead of without forwarding the same to the appellate authority, forwarded the petition back to the Tahsildar for re-consideration. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, such a course adopted by the District Collector is not in accordance with the procedure contemplated under law.

¶22

The learned counsel appearing on either side would submit that since the parties have now entered into a compromise, the respondent has agreed not to interfere with the petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property.

¶23

2/4

¶24

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

¶25

Cont.P.(MD)No.938 of 2025

¶26