P PARVATHI Vs. LEELA SAMSON DIRECTOR KALAKSHETRA FOUNDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE contempt complained of is in respect of the order passed by this Court dated 12.12.2007 in M.P.No.1 of 2007 in W.P.No.36902 of 2007.

(2.) 2.1. In the writ petition filed by the petitioners herein, they have sought a direction against the second respondent in the writ petition, viz., the Tahsildar, Mylapore - Triplicane Taluk, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004, to sub-divide and demarcate the lands situated in T.S.No.1 in Block No.58, Tiruvanmiyur Village, Chennai District and issue a separate patta in respect of lands stated to be belonging to the petitioners admeasuring 21.12 Acres in Old Survey No.179/2 in T.S.No.1 in Block No.58, Tiruvanmiyur Village, Chennai District. 2.2. Pending the said writ petition, the petitioners have also moved a petition in M.P.No.1 of 2007 praying for an injunction against the third respondent in the writ petition, who is the sole respondent herein, from in any manner putting up any construction whatsoever in Survey No.179/2, T.S.No.1, Block No.58, Thiruvanmiyur Village, Chennai District pending disposal of the writ petition. This Court has passed the following order on 12.12.2007:

(3.) 5.1. In the reply affidavit filed by the sixth petitioner, it is stated that even in the modified order dated 17.12.2008, the respondent has not been permitted to put up any new construction and it was only for the purpose of carrying out repair works. It is stated that the non mentioning of the order dated 17.12.2008 is not wilful and it was a bonafide mistake, since it was felt that even by the order dated 17.12.2008 what was permitted was only to effect repairs and on the other hand, the conduct complained of on the part of the respondent is relating to putting up new construction and demolition. 5.2. According to the petitioners, the very purpose of granting permission for repair was that the compound wall on the northern side of the land was partly broken due to rainfall and on the other hand, there has been a demolition of auditorium and construction activity has been done, which is against the order dated 17.12.2008. 5.3. It is stated that on 19.12.2007 when construction activity was found, a telegram was sent and thereafter the respondent has not carried out any construction activity. However, few months thereafter, the learned counsel for the respondent is stated to have telephonically clarified that materials were brought only for the purpose of repair and construction of the broken wall and that the construction of the wall is essential to safeguard the interest of the respondent's foundation, which is an institution of national importance. Therefore, the petitioners expressed their no objection for the respondent to proceed with the repair and construction of the compound wall and in all other respects the order of status quo was intended to continue and hence, it is stated that the order dated 17.12.2008 has not given any permission to the respondent to put up construction.