Madras High Court
S.Durai Raj vs Kiran Kuralan on 3 March, 2021
Cont. Petn. No.382 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 03.03.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
Contempt Petition No.382 of 2017
1.S.Durai Raj
2.V.Nandisamy
3.A.Srinivasan .. Petitioners
Vs.
Kiran Kuralan
The Managing Director
Tamil Nadu Housing Board
493, Anna Salai, Nandanam
Chennai - 600 035 .. Respondents
***
Prayer: Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971 to punish the respondent for wilful disobedience of the
order passed by this Hon'ble Court dated 10.11.2016 in W.P. No.27413
of 2016.
***
For Petitioner : Mr.Manicka Siva Subramanian
for M/s.V.Raghavachari
For Respondents : Mr.R.Bharathkumar
ORDER
This contempt petition is filed alleging the wilful disobedience of
the order of this Court dated 10.11.2016 made in W.P. No.27413 of
2016.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 1/4
Cont. Petn. No.382 of 2017
2. The petitioner along with two others filed W.P. No.21413 of
2016 for issuing a writ of mandamus, to direct the respondents therein
to issue a No Objection Certificate to the petitioners in respect of certain
lands situated at S. No.137/1A1 in Sankaraperi Village, Tuticorin District.
3. The petitioner along with two other land owners challenging the
acquisition proceedings, filed independent writ petitions in W.P.
Nos.10716, 10717 and 10718 of 1998 to quash the notification issued by
the Government under Section 4(1) and 6 of the Act. This court, vide
order dated 25.07.1997, quashed the notification in respect of the total
extent of 41.14 Acres which includes the petitioners land in
S.No.137/A1. Challenging the said order, the respondents therein filed
Writ Appeals in W.A. Nos.1094, 1095 and 1096/2016 and this court, by
a judgment dated 08.08.2008, set aside the order passed in the writ
petitions and remitted the matters for fresh consideration.
4. When the writ petitions were pending, the petitioner submitted a
representation to the effect that the proceedings initiated under the Land
Acquisition Act, lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of the said Act, as
physical possession of the land was not taken and the first respondent
therein, namely the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, was duty bound to issue
No Objection Certificate. Hence the petitioner herein along with two
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 2/4
Cont. Petn. No.382 of 2017
others have filed W.P. No.27413 of 2016. Considering the contentions of
either side, this court, by an order dated 10.11.2016, directed the first
respondent to dispose of the representation of the petitioners on merits
and in accordance with law.
5. The learned standing counsel appearing for the Tamil Nadu
Housing Board, stated that the representation of the petitioners was
considered and their request for No Objection Certificate was turned
down on the ground that the matter challenging the acquisition
proceedings is still pending. This court is of the view that the direction by
this court in the writ petition was only to consider the representation.
Even the order passed on 02.06.2017 by the first respondent is an order
on merits, even though no factual details were discussed. However, the
grant of No Objection Certificate was turned down for the reason stated
in the order. Since the direction of this court is duly complied with, this
court has no hesitation, to close this contempt petition.
Accordingly, this contempt petition is closed. No costs.
03.03.2021
Asr
Index : Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 3/4
Cont. Petn. No.382 of 2017
S.S.SUNDAR, J.
asr
Cont. Petn. No.382 of 2017
03.03.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 4/4
