A.Rathinavel vs N.Ravichandran And Others

G. R. Swaminathan, J

The petitioner herein filed WP(MD)No. 8093 of 2011 for directing the Corporation of Trichirappalli to remove the encroachments alleged to have been made in Mela Street, Melakalkandar Kottai, Trichirappalli. The writ petitioner is a resident of the said street. The said writ petition was allowed by order dated 04. 01. 2017. The authorities of the Corporation were directed to remove all the encroachments by following due process of law within a period of two months. According to the petitioner, this order passed by the Division Bench of this Court was not complied with. Hence, he filed Cont P(MD)No. 782 of 2017. The respondents filed a counter affidavit claiming that the encroachments found in the street have been removed. But the petitioner still claimed that all the encroachments have not been removed and a partial removal of encroachments cannot constitute total compliance of the direction issued by this Court. Therefore, even while closing the said contempt petition, this Court directed the Commissioner, Corporation of Trichirappalli to cause inspection of the street in question in the presence of the petitioner herein. It was directed that the survey shall be conducted by the Head Surveyor. The Commissioner of Corporation, Trichirappalli was mandated to remove the remaining encroachments if any by taking into account the plan prepared by the surveyor after survey.

According to the petitioner, this direction was also not complied with. Therefore, he filed the present Contempt Petition (MD)No. 1902 of 2018. This Court called upon the respondents to meet the allegations made by the petitioner. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the Commissioner, Trichirappalli Corporation. In the said counter affidavit, it has been stated that on 11. 11. 2017 survey was conducted in the presence of the petitioner and his lawyers. The entire exercise was photographed and video recorded. The survey lasted at more than three hours. But, the survey exercise undertaken by the Corporation was not acceptable to the petitioner. Because, he wanted the measurement to be done as per the sketch produced by him. The surveyor expressed his inability, because the sketch relied on by the petitioner was not available with the department and that therefore, he can measure the property only as per the map available with the department.

Thus, according to the respondents, the entire area was surveyed and as per the survey sketch and report, all the encroachments made in Mela Street have been removed. The surveyor also showed the extract of the measurements and road margin to the petitioner. But, the petitioner is still not satisfied.

This Court heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned standing counsel for the respondents at length. Since there are factual disputes, we are of the view that the same cannot be gone into or adjudicated in these proceedings. We are satisfied that there has been no willful disobedience of the direction issued by this Court either in the main writ petition or in Cont P(MD)No. 782 of 2017. If the petitioner is still having any grievance, it is always open to him to file a comprehensive civil suit for obtaining the relief that he seeks.

With this liberty to the petitioner to move the jurisdictional civil court, this contempt petition stands closed.