← Library
Madras High CourtCONT P(MD)/1006/2024closed

P.Sivasankar v. Vengadesan

2024-10-14Honourable Mr Justice K.Murali Shankar4 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATE : 14.10.2024

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR Contempt Petition(MD).No.1006 of 2024 in W.P(MD)No.7269 of 2024 P.Sivasankar : Petitioner / Petitioner Vs.

Vengadesan Tahsildar, Kumbakonram, Thanjavur District.

: Contemnor/7th Respondent PRAYER: Contempt Petition has been filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, to punish the contemnor/respondent herein for committing grave contempt and gross disobedience of the order passed by this Court in WP(MD)No.7269 of 2024, dated 27.03.2024. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Rajaraman For Respondents : Mr.Veerakathiravan, Additional Advocate General, Asst by Mr.M.Muthumanikkam, Government Advocate (Civil Side)

ORDER

The above petition has been filed, invoking Section 11 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, seeking orders, to punish the contemnor/respondent herein 1/4

for committing grave contempt and gross disobedience of the order passed by this Court in WP(MD)No.7269 of 2024, dated 27.03.2024.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondent.

3. It is evident from the records that this Court vide order, dated 27.03.2024, directed the Tashildar, Kumbakonam, to conduct enquiry and pass orders, to provide police protection for harvesting the paddy, within one week from today, if the petitioner is found to be holding proper documents regarding the claim of the petitioner and if it is otherwise, the Tahsildar may pass orders, directing any one to harvest the crops and pay necessary charges for the same in the Treasury, so that the crops are not wasted and that in case, the petitioner was permitted to harvest the crops, the petitioner has to pay necessary charges for police protection, as per the Circular of the Director General of Police/Head of State Police Force, Tamil Nadu. 4.The learned Additional Advocate General would submit that in pursuance of the directions that since the adjacent land owners have raised objections for the petitioner to harvest the crops, the Tahsildar, by engaging 2/4

necessary men, has harvested the crops and deposited the amount of Rs. 1,11,486/- in the Government account and that the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw the amount.

5.But the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is not willing to withdraw the amount. 6.As rightly contended by the learned Additional Advocate General, the concerned Tahsildar has already complied with the directions of this Court and deposited the amount and if the petitioner is still aggrieved with regard to the land dispute, he is at liberty to approach the competent civil Court.

7. In view of the above, the Contempt Petition is closed. The petitioner is at liberty to withdraw the amount of Rs.1,11,486/- in the Government account.

14.10.2024 NCC :Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No 3/4

das K.MURALI SHANKAR, J.

das Contempt Petition(MD).No.1006 of 2024 in W.P(MD)No.7269 of 2024 14.10.2024 4/4