← Library
Madras High CourtCONT P/2216/2023closed

S.Shanmugavalli v. Mr. Amith

2023-11-07Honourable Mr Justice S. Vaidyanathan,Honourable Mr Justice Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 07.11.2023

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. VAIDYANATHAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP Cont. Petn. No.2216 of 2023 S. Shanmugavalli Petitioner v Mr. Amith District Revenue Officer Assistant Commissioner, Zone 12 Greater Chennai Corporation Alandur, Chennai 600 016 Mrs. Pramila Tahsildar 14, Old Dairy Farm Road Alandur, Chennai 600 016 Respondents Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, seeking to punish the respondents for wilful disobedience of the order dated 22.06.2022 passed in W.P. No.8854 of 2017.

For petitioner Ms. P. Rajalakshmi For R1 Mr. D.B.R. Prabhu Standing Counsel For R2 Mr.J.Ravindran Addl.Adv.Gen. (Coordination) assisted by Mr. A. Selvendran, Spl. Govt. Pleader - - - - -

ORDER

This contempt petition has been preferred seeking to punish the respondents for the alleged noncompliance of the order dated 22.06.2022 passed by this Court in W.P. No.8854 of 2017. Today, when this contempt petition was taken up for hearing, the learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent-Chennai Corporation submitted that if the Tahsildar earmarks the encroached portion, the encroachment will be removed within a period of one month thereof. The learned Additional Advocate General (Coordination) submitted that the Tahsildar would earmark the encroached portion within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Since it is admitted by the learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent-Chennai Corporation and also the learned Additional Advocate General (Coordination) appearing for the second respondentTahsildar that there is encroachment and that the same will be removed as aforesaid, no useful purpose would be served by keeping this contempt petition pending.

Ergo, this contempt petition is closed giving liberty to the petitioner to re-open this contempt petition or file a fresh contempt petition, in case, the encroachment is not removed within the period as assured by the learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent-Chennai Corporation and the learned Additional Advocate General (Coordination) appearing for the second respondent.

(S.V.N., J.) (S.S.K., J.) 07.11.2023 cad

S. VAIDYANATHAN, J.

and SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.

cad Cont. Petition No.2216 of 2023 07.11.2023