M. Thirumalai Pillai v. Dr. J. U. Chandrakala, I.A.S., And 2 Others

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 18.09.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ M.Thirumalai Pillai

...Petitioner

Vs.

1.Dr.J.U.Chandrakala, IAS, The District Collector, Ranipet District, Ranipet.

2.N.Suresh 3.P.A.Arulselvam

...Respondents

PRAYER: Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, praying to initiate contempt proceedings as against the respondents for having disobeyed the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.4780 of 2024 dated 27.02.2024.

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Ananth For Respondents: Mr.D.Ravichander Spl.GP.

*****

O R D E R

1/4

(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.) The Contempt Petition has been instituted to punish the respondents for their wilful disobedience of the orders of this Court dated 27.02.2024 made in W.P.No.4780 of 2024.

2. This Court passed the following orders:- In the light of the said submission, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 18.12.2023 and conduct a survey of the lands in question in the presence of all the parties concerned and thereafter take appropriate action, in accordance with law. The entire exercise shall be completed by the respondent authorities within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

3. The learned Special Government Pleader based on instructions from the officials would submit that there is no S.No.64/5 as stated by the petitioner in his affidavit. As per the revenue documents S.No.64/1 to 64/4 alone is available and the said lands belong to the petitioner. Thus, the statement made by the petitioner is found to be wrong. Therefore, the Tahsildar issued a notice to the petitioner calling upon him to submit documents to enable them to consider the issue. However, 2/4

the petitioner failed to participate in the enquiry and even before this Court no document has been produced to establish that S.No.64/5 exist.

4. This being the factum established, this Court is unable to find any wilful disobedience on the part of the respondents in respect of the order passed in the Writ Petition. Consequently, the Contempt Petition stands closed.

(S.M.S., J.) (M.S.Q., J.) 18.09.2025 dsa Internet :Yes/No Index :Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order 3/4

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

and MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.

dsa 18.09.2025 4/4