Munusamy vs K.Senthil Kumar
2024 Latest Caselaw 18567 Mad

Madras High Court

Munusamy vs K.Senthil Kumar on 20 September, 2024

Author: D.Krishnakumar

Bench: D.Krishnakumar

                                                                        Cont.P.No.2613 of 2024



                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                              DATED:       20.09.2024

                                                     CORAM :

                             THE HON'BLE MR.D.KRISHNAKUMAR, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
                                                          AND
                                       THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI


                                             Cont.P.No.2613 of 2024

                     Munusamy                                             .. Petitioner
                                                          Vs
                     1.K.Senthil Kumar,
                       Erstwhile Tahsildar, Chengalpattu Taluk,
                       Now working as
                       The Deputy Collector,
                       Tiruvannamalai District.

                     2.T.Dhanalakshmi,
                       Erstwhile Tahsildar, Chengalpattu Taluk,
                       Now working as
                       The Special Tahsildar,
                       Social Security Scheme,
                       Chengalpattu.

                     3.Poonguzhali,
                       Tahsildar,
                       Chengalpattu Taluk Office,
                       Chengalpattu Taluk and District.                   .. Respondents


                     Prayer: Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act,
                     1971 to punish the respondents for wilful disobedience of the order
                     dated 5.5.2022 passed in W.P.No.11944 of 2022.



                     __________
                     Page 1 of 5


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                              Cont.P.No.2613 of 2024



                                      For the Petitioner       : Mr.G.Magesh Kumar

                                      For the Respondents      : Mr.T.K.Saravanan
                                                                 Government Advocate

                                                           ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice)

This contempt petition is filed alleging willful disobedience of

the order dated 5.5.2022 passed in W.P.No.11944 of 2022.

2. The petitioner herein is the eighth respondent in the writ

petition. The plea made in the writ petition by the original writ

petitioner is that the petitioner herein has encroached the village

natham, temple land, common pathway, government poramboke

land and water channel.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the land in

question is classified as grama natham and the respondents have no

right to evict the petitioner.

4. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has been evicted from

__________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

the land in question on 6.5.2023. Well-nigh after one year the

present contempt petition is filed by the petitioner alleging that the

respondents are not empowered to evict the petitioner from the land

classified as grama natham.

5. The Apex Court in the case of Director of Education,

Uttaranchal and others vs. Ved Prakash Joshi and others,

(2005) 6 SCC 98, emphatically held that the Court exercising

contempt jurisdiction cannot arrogate the power to decide the

original proceedings in a manner not dealt with by the court which

passed the judgment or order and that it cannot test the correctness

or otherwise of the order or give additional direction or delete any

direction, as the same amounts to exercising review jurisdiction

while dealing with a petition for initiation of contempt proceedings.

6. In the light of law propounded by the Apex Court in the

decision, referred supra, we are not inclined to entertain the present

contempt petition to give an additional direction to the respondents.

__________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

7. We do not find any willful disobedience of the order passed

in the writ petition, as alleged by the petitioner. No contempt is

made out.

The contempt petition is closed. There shall be no order as to

costs.

                                                                 (D.K.K., ACJ.)          (P.B.B, J.)
                                                                                  20.09.2024
                     Index             :     Yes/No
                     NC                :     Yes/No
                     sasi




                     __________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

THE HON'BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND P.B.BALAJI, J.

(sasi)

20.09.2024

__________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis