N. Elumalai vs The District Collector
2025 Latest Caselaw 2967 Mad

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 2967 Mad
Judgement Date : 18 February, 2025

Madras High Court

N. Elumalai vs The District Collector on 18 February, 2025

Author: M.Sundar

Bench: M.Sundar

W.P. No.5073 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 18.02.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K. GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI

W.P.No.5073 of 2025 and W.M.P. No.5634 of 2025

N. Elumalai Petitioner
vs.

1. The District Collector
Villupuram District
Villupuram

2. The Sub Collector
Villupuram District
Villupuram

3. The Block Development Officer
Mailam Union Office
Kooteripattu
Tindivanam Taluk
Villupuram District

4. The Tahsildar
Tindivanam Taluk
Nehur Street
Tindivanam
Villupuram District

5. The Divisional Engineer
Highways Department C (A) M
Villupuram District

Page Nos.1/8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. No.5073 of 2025

6. The Assistant Divisional Engineer
Highways Department C(A) M
Villupuram District

7. S. Sivakumar

8. S. Jai Sankar @ Sankar Respondents

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records in

proceedings in Na.Ka.No.A3/2322/2022 dated 24.01.2024 passed by

the second respondent and quash the same and further direct the

respondents 1 to 6 to remove the encroachments made in S.No.418/2

and 418/3.

For petitioner Mr. P. Manish

ORDER

[made by M.SUNDAR, J.]

When the captioned 'writ petition' (hereinafter 'WP' for the sake

of brevity) was taken up, it came to light that the writ petitioner has

filed a contempt petition being Cont. Petn. No.2867 of 2023

complaining of noncompliance qua order dated 22.12.2021 made in

W.P.No.27271 of 2021 filed by writ petitioner. This order in the

contempt petition has not been enclosed in the typed set of papers.

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

Therefore, this Court went into the official website of Madras High

Court and ferreted out a copy of the order dated 02.02.2024 in Cont.

Petn. No.2867 of 2023 and a reproduction of the same is as follows:

'IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 02.02.2024 CORAM :

THE HON-BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN AND THE HON-BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ Contempt Petition No.2867 of 2023 N.Elumalai ... Petitioner Vs. Shiva The Tahsildar, Thindivan Taluk, Nehru Street, Thindivanam, Villupuram District. ... Respondent

Prayer: Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempts of Court Act, 1971, to punish the respondent for willful disobedience of the order made in W.P.No.27271 of 2021, dated 22.12.2021.

For Petitioner : Mr.I.Abrar MD Abdullah

For Respondent : Mr.P.Sathish Kumar Additional Government Pleader

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by R. MAHADEVAN, J.)

For the alleged disobedience of the order of this court dated 22.12.2021, passed in W.P.No.27271 of 2021, the present contempt petition came to be filed by the petitioner.

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

2. When this Contempt Petition was taken up for hearing, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent, on instructions, submitted that the order of this Court has been complied with.

3.The aforesaid submission made on the side of the respondent authorities, has been conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

4. Recording the above submission, this Contempt Petition is closed.

                                                                              [R.M.D,J.]       [M.S.Q, J.]
                                                                                       02.02.2024'

2. Adverting to paragraph 3 of the aforereferred contempt

order, Mr. P. Manish, learned counsel on record for writ petitioner,

submitted that the writ petitioner did not really concede that orders

have been made by R4 herein (Tahsildar) who is R3 in W.P.No.27271 of

2021.

3. Law is well settled that statement of fact as to what

transpired at a hearing recorded in a judgment of Court is conclusive

on facts and only the Court recording the statement itself is competent

to rectify the error, if approached (without delay). This is Ramdas

Shrinivas Nayak principle being ratio of Hon'ble Supreme Court in

State of Maharashtra vs. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak and another

reported in (1982) 2 SCC 463. The most relevant portion is contained

in paragraph 4 and the same reads as follows:

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

'.......If the Judges say in their judgment that something was done, said or admitted before them, that has to be the last word on the subject. The principle is well-settled that statements of fact as to what transpired at the hearing, recorded in the judgment of the court, are conclusive of the facts so stated and no one can contradict such statements by affidavit or other evidence. If a party thinks that the happenings in court have been wrongly recorded in a judgment, it is incumbent upon the party, while the matter is still fresh in the minds of the Judges, to call the attention of the very Judges who have made the record to the fact that the statement made with regard to his conduct was a statement that had been made in error. [ Per Lord Buckmaster in Madhu Sudan Chowdhri v. Chandrabati Chowdhrain, AIR 1917 PC 30 : 42 IC 527] That is the only way to have the record corrected. ......

(underlining made by us for ease of reference)

4. Faced with the above situation, learned counsel sought

leave of this Court to withdraw the captioned WP and writ

miscellaneous petition thereat but made a plea to preserve all the

rights and contentions of writ petitioner to approach the contempt

Court vide Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak principle. This request for

preservation of rights and contentions of writ petitioner is acceded to.

Endorsement made by learned counsel in the case file in this regard is

as follows:

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

5. Ergo, the sequitur is, captioned main WP and writ

miscellaneous petition thereat are disposed of as closed/withdrawn

albeit with preservation of rights and contentions of writ petitioner in

the aforesaid manner. There shall be no order as to costs.




                                                                    (M.S., J.) (K.G.T., J.)
                                                                            18.02.2025

                     cad
                     Index             :   Yes/No
                     NC                :   Yes/No

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

To: