Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 40523
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.R.Swaminathan, R.Poornima, JJ
M.ASHOKMANI – Appellant
Versus
S.VISAKAN IAS. – Respondent
Cont P(MD)No.1287 of 2021 in W.P(MD)No.13303 of 2020
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.H.Thayumanaswamy
For the Respondents:Mr.S.Vinodh Government Advocate
The Land Encroachment Act applies only to public land, not patta land.
Headnote:The Court analyzed the Contempts of Courts Act, 1971, and the Land Encroachment Act, noting that the petition arose from a writ petition seeking removal of encroachment on a public pathway. Court found the impugned order had been based on incorrect identification of survey numbers and concluded that authorities lacked jurisdiction to evict from patta land as Survey No.595/27 is not public land. The Court framed the issue whether the contemnors had willfully disobeyed the Court order. The reasoning focused on whether the authorities could act on a patta land and the scope of enforcement of the prior writ order.
Result: The Contempt Petition is closed, with liberty to the petitioner to pursue the remedy elsewhere.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of petition and prior writ order. (Para 1) |
| 2. lack of jurisdiction over patta land. (Para 2) |
| 3. petition closed with liberty. (Para 3) |
(Order of the Court was made by G.R.Swaminathan J.)
The petitioner filed W.P(MD)No.13303 of 2020 for removing the encroachment said to have been committed by one Anbilrajan in Survey Nos.595/3 and 595/54 (public pathway) at Kariyampatti. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned Government Advocate submitted that Thiru.Anbilrajan, the fifth respondent, had committed encroachment in Survey No.595/27. In that view of the matter, this Court vide order dated 18.02.2021 directed the authorities to remove the said encroachment committed by the fifth respondent. Contending that the said order has not been complied with, this contempt petition came to be filed.
2.When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned Government Advocate produced all the relevant materials, including the extract from the revenue record. It is seen therefrom that Survey No. 595/27 is a patta land. It is well settled that the provisions of the Land Encroachment Act can be invoked only if encroachment has been committed on a public land. Therefore, the authorities lack the jurisdiction to evict the fifth respondent from Survey No.595/27. Even the report of the Tahsildar addressed to the law officer is on the same lines. The petitioner’s remedy lies elsewhere.
3.With the aforesaid liberty to the petitioner, this Contempt Petition is closed.
