Jaffar Sadiq v. B.Priyanka Pankajam, Ias

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 18.06.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE in W.P.(MD)No.1894 of 2025 Jaffar Sadiq ... Petitioner Vs.

1.Tmt.B.Priyanka Pankajam IAS, The District Collector, Office of the Collectorate, 2.Mrs.Elakiya, The Revenue Divisional Officer, Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer, 3.Mr.Sivakumar, The Tahsildar, Office of the Tahsildar, 4.Mrs.Geetha, The Assistant Superintending Engineer, 1/6

Highways Department, Old Collectorate Office,

...Respondents

PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, to punish the respondents for their willful disobedience against the order of this Court dated 23.01.2025 passed in W.P.(MD)No.1894 of 2025. For Petitioner : Mr.G.Karnan, for Mr.K.M.Karunakaran For Respondents : Mr.M.Sarangan, Additional Government Pleader

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.) This Contempt Petition has been instituted to punish the respondents for their willful disobedience of the order of this Court dated 23.01.2025 passed in W.P.(MD)No.1894 of 2025.

2.In the said Writ Petition, this Court has passed the following order:- "6.In the light of the above observations, there shall be a direction to the respondents 1 to 4 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 25.11.2024, on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after giving due 2/6

opportunity to the petitioner herein and the respondents 5 to 7, as well as all other persons, who may be interested in the subject property, within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any of its own views with regard to the merits of the matter and that it is open to the concerned respondents to consider the same on its own merits.

7.With the above direction, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs." 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would mainly contend that no patta has been issued to the respondents 5 to 7 in the Writ Petition in respect of S.No.42/1, which is classified as 'Vandi Pathai'. 4.However, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, based on the instructions given by the Tahsildar, Thanjavur District, would submit that patta has been granted in favour of the respondents 5 to 7 / private respondents in the Writ Petition, as far as the subject property is concerned. However, entries are not made in the register. Therefore, the private respondents cannot be construed as encroachers. 3/6

5.May that as it be, if at all the patta has been granted erroneously or it is granted in respect of Vandi Pathai, the petitioner is at liberty to prefer an appeal before the appellate authority under Patta Passbook Act or to approach the civil Court as the case may be to resolve the matter. However, such disputed facts relating to classification of lands or issuance of patta cannot be adjudicated in a contempt proceedings. Thus, this Court do not find any willful disobedience of the order of this Court. Therefore, this Contempt Petition stands dismissed. (S.M.S., J.) & (A.D.M.C., J.) 18.06.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Yuva To 1.Tmt.B.Priyanka Pankajam IAS, The District Collector, Office of the Collectorate, 2.Mrs.Elakiya, The Revenue Divisional Officer, Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer, 4/6

3.Mr.Sivakumar, The Tahsildar, Office of the Tahsildar, 4.Mrs.Geetha, The Assistant Superintending Engineer, Highways Department, Old Collectorate Office, 5/6

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

AND DR.A.D.MARIA CLETE, J.

Yuva 18.06.2025 6/6