High CourtsDivision Bench(2014) 11 MAD CK 0305

P. Kulandaivel vs S. Gowthaman

Madras High Court · Decided on 6 November 2014

HON’BLE JUDGES
Satish K. Agnihotri, J · Pushpa Sathyanarayana, J
CASE NUMBER
Contempt Petition No. 2628 of 2014 and Sub-Application Nos. 575 and 576 of 2014

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 368 words
1.

This Contempt Petition is filed on the ground that the order dated 12.11.2013 passed in W.P. No. 26223 of 2013 has not been complied with by the respondent.

2.

This Court, at the instance of the contempt petitioner, while disposing of the writ petition in W.P. No. 26223 of 2013, directed the Executive Officer, Thammampatti Town Panchayat, the respondent herein, to take appropriate action on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

3.

It appears that the respondent herein has taken action, but, belatedly.

4.

The respondent herein has filed an affidavit of compliance dated 05.11.2014 stating as under:

5.

It is humbly submitted that the writ petitioner on the date of hearing 28.10.2014 objected that the well belongs to Mr. N.P. Periasamy was not removed. It is submitted that as per Revenue Record that the disputed well in surface area is having measurement to an extent of 21 x 18 =378 square feet. Out of which the well surface area is 252 square feet which is situated in S. No. 102/4 and comes within the Periyasamy''s patta land. The remaining surface area of the well is 119 square feet which is in Government land. The encroached well area in the Government Land i.e. 119 square feet was removed on 31.10.2014.

5.

The learned counsel for the petitioner disputes the nature of the property stating that the encroachment is on the public land and the same does not belong to any private person.

6.

We cannot examine the disputed facts in the contempt petition. However, we feel it proper to direct to the respondent to consider the application for survey in the presence of the petitioner as well as the person who claims to be the owner of the property and take appropriate action thereafter, as expeditiously as possible.

7.

The Contempt Petition is closed with the above direction. Connected Sub-Application No. 576 of 2014 is closed.

8.

In view of the order passed in the Contempt Petition, there is no necessity for passing any orders in Sub-Application No. 575 of 2014. Accordingly, Sub-Application No. 575 of 2014 is also closed.