N.Balasubramaniyan v. Raju

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 23.02.2026

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR 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 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.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.R.Anbarasu For Respondent : Mr.S.Sankar.

ORDER

This Contempt Petition has been filed seeking orders to punish 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. 1/4

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

2/4

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit in view of the said submission, the same may be recorded, the contempt petition may be closed.

6. In view of the above and the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the contemnor and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the Contempt Petition is closed. 23.02.2026 NCC :Yes/No Index :Yes/No Internet : Yes/ No das 1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thiruvidaimaruthur, Thanjavur District.

2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

3/4

K.MURALI SHANKAR,J.

das Order made in CONT.P(MD)No.938 of 2025 in W.P(MD)No.24932 of 2024 23.02.2026 4/4