R.Jayalakshmi v. J.Radhakrishnan And 3 Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED 15.03.2024

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR R.Jayalakshmi ... Petitioner Vs

1. Mr.J.Radhakrishnan, The Commissioner, Corporationn of Chennai, Rippon Building, Chennai.

2. Mr.G.Radhakrishnan The Zonal Offficer, Corporation of Chennai, Zone 04, Chennai Greater Corporation, Tondiarpet, Chennai - 600 021.

3. Dr.M.Lakshmi Devi, Regional Deputy Commissioner [North], Corporationn of Chennai, Basin Bridge Road, Chennai - 600 021.

4. Mr.S.Arun, Tahsildar, Perambur Taluk, Perambur, Chennai - 600 011.

... Respondents 1/5

Prayer:- Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act to punish the respondents under the Contempt of Courts Act for deliberate, Wilful and wanton disobidience of Orders of this Court dated 25.01.2023 passed in Main Writ Petition, W.P.No.25431 of 2022. For Petitioner : Mr.T.Sundar Rajan For Respondents : Mrs.P.T.Ramadevi - R1 to R3 Mr.P.Balathandayutham Special Government Pleader - R4

ORDER

Heard Mr.T.Sundar Rajan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.P.T.Ramadevi, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.P.Balathandayutham, Special Government Pleader appearing for the fourth respondent.

2. This Contempt Petition has been filed mainly on the ground that despite the Order of this Court, patta has not been changed in the name of the petitioner.

2/5

3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the Permanent Land Register has been changed to the name of the petitioner.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that his main grievance against the respondents is not to interfere with her possession of the property and since the regularization plan is also cancelled by the respondents, the same has to be restored to protect his possession.

5. As the revenue records are in the name of the petitioner, it goes without saying that the property declared by the Civil Court in favour of the petitioner will ennure his benefit. If at all the regularization plan is not revived, the same will not in any way affect the title of the petitioner. In such view of the matter, this Court do find any contempt made out against the respondents. In the event, the petitioner files any application for restoration of the regularization of the plan, in the light of 3/5

the Orders passed by the Civil Court, the respondents shall pass an Order to revive the regularization of the plan.

6. With the above observation, this Contempt Petition is closed.

15.03.2024 vrc 4/5

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.

vrc 15.03.2024 5/5