Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 23598

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J
A.Lourdu Mary – Appellant
Versus
C.Agatheeswaran Tahsildar – Respondent
Contempt Petition | W.P.No.33462 of 2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.N.Elumalai
For the Respondents:Mr.M.S.Premkumar Government Advocate

Failure to comply with a court order constitutes contempt, but demonstration of compliance can resolve the issue.

Headnote:Statute Analysis: The contempt petition is filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, seeking to punish the respondent for failing to comply with a prior court order from 10.10.2025 to conduct a land survey and consider the issuance of patta. Facts of the Case: The petitioner contends the respondent’s deliberate non-compliance with the court order.

Findings of Court:
The court records compliance with the order as the Government Advocate has produced the relevant pattas confirming that the petitioner's requests are now addressed.

Issues: The court frames the question of whether the respondent willfully disobeyed the court's order.

Ratio Decidendi: The court notes on record that compliance was met as the relevant documents (patta No.8649 and patta No.8650) were presented during the hearing.

Result: Recording the above, this Contempt Petition stands closed.

Table of Content
1. contempt petition filed for willful disobedience of court order. (Para 1)
2. court observes compliance with the order through presentation of pattas. (Para 2)

ORDER

This contempt petition has been filed to punish the respondent for his willful and deliberate intention not to obey the order dated 10.10.2025 passed in W.P.No.33462 of 2025, thereby directing the 3^rd respondent therein to conduct a survey of the subject land in S.No.256/1, situated at Othalavadi Village, Chetpet Taluk, Thiruvannamalai District and on completion of the survey, the 3^rd respondent shall consider the petitioner’s request for issuance of patta for 2 ½ cents in favour of her and 3 cents in favour of her legal heirs, in accordance with the proceedings dated 04.04.2025, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order.

2.Today when the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent submitted that as directed by this Court, the Government Advocate has produced copy of the patta No.8649, which stands in the name of the petitioner as well as patta No.8650, which stands in the name of the petitioner’s son.

3.Recording the above, this Contempt Petition stands closed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 23598

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASG.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, JA.Lourdu Mary – AppellantVersusC.Agatheeswaran Tahsildar – RespondentContempt Petition | W.P.No.33462 of 2025

Failure to comply with a court order constitutes contempt, but demonstration of compliance can resolve the issue.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J
A.Lourdu Mary – Appellant
Versus
C.Agatheeswaran Tahsildar – Respondent
Contempt Petition | W.P.No.33462 of 2025