[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
R.Selvam vs Chitra Vijayan on 17 February, 2026
Author: G. Jayachandran
Bench: G. Jayachandran
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 06.02.2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 17.02.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G. JAYACHANDRAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN
CONT.P.(MD)No.2700 of 2025
R.Selvam ...Petitioner(s)
Vs
Chitra Vijayan, IAS
Commissioner
Madurai Corporation
Madurai. ...Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971 to initiate Contempt of Court Proceedings against the
Respondent for willful and contumacious disobedience of direction
passed by this Court in the order made in W.P.(MD) No.31406 of 2024
dated 6.1.2025.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.R.Kannan
For Respondents : Mr.M,Ajmal Khan
Additional Advocate General
assisted by Mr.S.Vinayak
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/02/2026 09:01:45 pm )
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.)
W.P.(MD)No.31406 of 2024 was filed by Thiru.R.Selvam, the
contempt petitioner, seeking issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus
to quash the execution order in Ma5E1/008489/2023 dated 12.12.2024
passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Madurai Corporation.
2.The order impugned in the said writ petition reads as follows:
“kJiu khefuhl;rp kz;lyk;.5(Nkw;F)> thu;L.71>
khlf;Fsk; fpuhkk;> T.S.No.122-y;> nghJg;ghij Mf;fpukpg;G
mfw;wf;Nfhup jhf;fy; nra;j tof;fpy;> ghu;it 1- y; fz;Ls;s
khz;GkpF nrd;id cau;ePjp kd;w kJiu fpis tof;F vz;.
W.P.(MD) No.20764/2024-d; gb> 25.04.2024 md;W jPug
; ;ghiz
tug;ngw;Ws;sJ. mjd;gb> jPu;gg
; hizia epiwNtw;Wk;
nghUl;L> Mf;fpukpg;Gfis mfw;w Nehl;B]; toq;fg;gl;L>
eltbf;if Nkw;nfhs;sg;gl;lJ.
ghu;it - 2y; fz;Ls;s vjpu;kDjhuu; jpU.nry;tk;
vd;gtu; khz;GkpF nrd;id cau;ePjp kd;w kJiu fpis
tof;Fvz; W.P.(MD)No.27380/2024 jPu;g;ghiz ehs;.02.12.2024
Mf;fpukpg;ig mfw;w Neupy; nrd;w NghJ> Nkw;fz;l tof;F
2/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/02/2026 09:01:45 pm )
njhlu;ghf Mf;fpukpg;G mfw;whky; epYitapy; epWj;jp
itf;fg;gl;lJ. jw;NghJ 02.12.2024 jPu;g;ghizapy; js;Sgb
nra;ag;gl;Ls;sjhy; ghu;it-3y; fz;Ls;s cjtpg;nghwpahsu;
Fwpg;gpd;gb> jhq;fNs xU thu fhyj;jpw;Fs; Mf;fpukpg;ig
mfw;w Ntz;Lk;. jtWk; gl;rj;jpy; khefuhl;rp tpjpfspd; gb>
Mf;fpukpg;G cldbahf mfw;wg;gLk; vd;w tpguk; ,jd; %yk;
njuptpf;fg;gLfpwJ.”
3.According to the writ petitioner, the land in T.S.No.122,
Madakulam Village, Madurai is a private road in exclusive use of his
family members. However, in the revenue records, it is wrongly entered
as public pathway. Based on the wrong entry, the impugned order of
execution was issued to evict the portion in occupation by encroachment.
4.When the above writ petition was taken up for consideration,
the writ petitioner had represented to the Court that he will be satisfied, if
his representation dated 19.09.2024 is directed to be considered within
the time prescribed. Recording the above submission, the Division
Bench of this Court vide order dated 06.01.2025 disposed the writ
petition with the following observations:
3/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/02/2026 09:01:45 pm )
“6.In the light of the submission made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, there shall be a direction to the first
respondent herein to consider the petitioner's representation dated
19.09.2024, on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in
accordance with law, after giving due opportunity to the petitioner
and the fourth respondent herein, as well as all other persons, who
may be interested in the subject matter, within a period of three (3)
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made
clear that this Court has not expressed any of its views with regard
to the merits of the matter and that it is open to the concerned
respondents to consider the same on its own merits.”
5.Claiming that his representation dated 19.09.2024 seeking to
remove the entry was not considered within three months, despite
direction in W.P.(MD)No.31406 of 2024, the instant contempt petition is
filed as against the Commissioner of Madurai Corporation.
6.When the contempt petition taken up for hearing on
23.01.2026, the learned Standing Counsel for the Madurai Corporation
produced a letter of the Assistant Commissioner, Madurai Corporation
addressed to the writ petitioner informing that his undated representation
stands rejected.
4/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/02/2026 09:01:45 pm )
7.In this letter, we found that the said letter was very cryptic
without any date and particulars regarding the enquiry conducted on the
representation of the writ petitioner. Hence, we directed the
Commissioner, Madurai corporation / contemnor to appear in person
before this Court and explain. Accordingly, the contemnor appeared in
person on 06.02.2026 along with the file and produced it for perusal.
8.On perusal of the file relating to the representation of the writ
petitioner, we find that the enquiry on the representation was conducted
by the officials of the Madurai Corporation on 27.02.2025. The writ
petitioner had appeared and submitted his case. Further, he had taken
one day time to produce the documents in support of his representation.
Thereafter, no enquiry was conducted.
9.However, in that file, we also found on 24.10.2025, the
Revenue Divisional Officer had written to the Commissioner, Madurai
Corporation stating that revenue records indicate that the land in R.S.No.
170/18A, 397/5A measuring 0.0070.0 is classified as Sarkar Purambokku
5/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/02/2026 09:01:45 pm )
street-Commissioner, Madurai Corporation. However, the writ petitioner
claims it as the land purchased by his ancestor under the sale document
No.3450/1906 and partition deed in Doc.No.2898/2015 and seeks for
cancellation of entry as 'corporation street' and to issue patta in his
favour. Hence, if the Commissioner has any objection to consider the
request of the writ petitioner, the same may be intimated. In response to
this letter, the Commissioner vide communication dated 02.12.2025, had
submitted his objections for transfer of patta in the name of the writ
petitioner, since it is a public street/lane.
10.Today, the learned Additional Advocate General submitted
that on 03.02.2026, the Commissioner has considered the representation
of the writ petitioner and rejected the same stating that the land in dispute
belongs to the Corporation and is used by the public as pathway and
hence, the Corporation has strong objection to issue patta for the said
land in favour of the writ petitioner. It is also informed to the writ
petitioner that transfer of patta and mutation of SLR is within the domain
of the revenue department and not within the purview of the
contemnor/Commissioner.
6/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/02/2026 09:01:45 pm )
11.The above said rejection order was despatched to the writ
petitioner only on 05.02.2026, just a day before the date on which we
have directed the contemnor to be present before this Court and produce
the file vide order dated 23.01.2026.
12.We are of the considered view that change in the revenue
record has to be done by the Revenue Department after hearing the rival
claimants. In the subject writ petition, though the Tahsildar is the third
respondent, the representation of the writ petitioner dated 19.09.2024
was directed to be considered by the first respondent (i.e.,) the
Commissioner of Madurai Corporation. No doubt, from the Revenue
Department, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thirumangalam has
initiated enquiry on the representation of the writ petitioner calling for
any objection from the Corporation for change of patta in favour of the
writ petitioner. To this notice, the Corporation has also replied saying
that they have objection for change of patta, since it is a public street.
Nevertheless, no order so far has been passed by the Thasildar.
7/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/02/2026 09:01:45 pm )
13.If at all any relief to be granted on the representation for
change of patta, the competent authority is the officials in the Revenue
Department and not the Commissioner of the Madurai Corporation.
Thus, we find that the contempt petition is misdirected. It is the Revenue
Department, which has to finally take a decision on the representation of
the writ petitioner, dated 19.09.2024.
14.As a result, though we find lapse in implementing the
direction of this Court within the time prescribed, we drop further action
against the contemnor. Accordingly, the contempt petition stands closed.
[G.J., J.] & [K.K.R.K., J.]
17.02.2026
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes
ta
To
Commissioner
Madurai Corporation
Madurai.
8/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/02/2026 09:01:45 pm )
DR.G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
AND
K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
ta
17.02.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/02/2026 09:01:45 pm )
