LAWS(MAD)-2008-9-221

R ELUMALAI Vs. M CHELLADURAI SECRETARY HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPT GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU FORT ST GEORGE CHENNAI

Decided On September 23, 2008
R. ELUMALAI Appellant
V/S
M.CHELLADURAI SECRETARY HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPT.GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU FORT ST. GEORGE CHENNAI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record.

(2.) THE petitioner herein filed a writ petition W. P. No. 7289 of 2007 praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the Executive Engineer and Administrative Officer, Anna Nagar Division, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Thirumangalam, Chennai - 600 101 relating to his notice dated 05. 02. 2007 in letter No. ANAKO/survey/0211/06 and quash the same. Along with the writ petition, the petitioner had also filed a miscellaneous petition in M. P. No. 1 of 2007 in the said writ petition praying for an order of interim injunction restraining the respondents therein from proceeding with the further demolition pursuant to the above demolition notice dated 05. 02. 2007 till disposal of the writ petition. When the matter came up for admission, as it was informed to the court that the demolition had already been carried out and subsequent to the demolition, the petitioner had put up a hut, the learned judge besides ordering notice to the respondents therein, granted an interim injunction not to demolish the hut put up by the petitioner. The said order was passed on 28. 02. 2007. Subsequently, the same was extended until further orders by order dated 08. 03. 2007.

(3.) CONTENDING that after the demolition work was completed by the Housing Board authorities pursuant to the demolition notice, the petitioner had put up a hut leaving 6 feet passage on the eastern side of the property for his personal use; that after the order of injunction was passed by this court, the respondents 1 and 2 acting in aid of respondents 3 and 4 trespassed into the petitioner's property and re-laid the stones on the above said 6 feet passage left by the petitioner for his personal use treating the same as a common passage and that thereby, the respondents have committed gross violation of the order of injunction granted by this court in M. P. No. 1 of 2007 in W. P. No. 7289 of 2007, the petitioner has come forward with the present contempt petition.