1 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 14.08.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN Cont.P.No. 136 of 2026 Selvaraju Son of Mr.Rajappan ... Petitioner/Petitioner Vs. Mrs.R.Revathi The Commissioner/Block Development Officer Mechari Panchayat Union Office Mechari Post Mettur Taluk Salem District. ... Respondent / 3 rd Respondent PRAYER : This Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, to punish the respondent herein for contempt for willfully disobeying the order dated 11.08.2025 made in W.M.P.No. 31416 of 2025 in W.P.No. 28024 of 2025 by appreciating the above stated facts and circumstances. *** For Petitioner : Mr. D.Lakshmipathy For Respondent : Mr. T.Gowtham AAG, assisted by Mrs. C.Meera Arumugam ORDER https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3 The petitioner is the owner of the property in S.No.173/1C and 138/2B. On 11.08.2025 and 03.09.2025, this Court granted an injunction restraining the Government from laying any road over the lands belonging to the petitioner. 2. At the time of admission, Ms.R.Regamitha, appearing for Mr.U.Baranidharan, reported that the road will be laid only over the area gifted to the local body for the said purpose. 3. Recording this submission, this Court directed that the order granting injunction shall continue until further orders. 4. It is the plea of the petitioner that the orders passed by the Court on 11.08.2025 and 03.09.2025 have been violated. Hence, the present Contempt Petition. 5. Taking note of the allegations, notice was issued. The contemnors appeared. Their presence was recorded. They were called upon to file response by way of affidavits, which they have done. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4 6. I heard Mr.D.Lakshmipathy, for the petitioner and Mr.T.Gowtham, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mrs. C.Meera Arumugam for the contemnors. 7. The learned Additional Advocate General points out that no new road has been laid by the respondents since the interim order was granted by this Court. In accordance with the NABARD scheme, the existing “kacha” road has been blacktopped and converted into a proper paved road. He asserts that no land belonging to the petitioner has been affected. He further states that the petitioner intends to force the respondents to lay a road over his property in order to benefit from such development. 8. A perusal of the orders dated 11.08.2025 and 03.09.2025 indicate that this Court granted interim orders only to protect the petitioner's rights and interests in the property. This Court lacks the competence to direct how a road should be laid by the Executive. It is a policy decision. The Executive has followed the NABARD's directions and laid a metalled road over the existing mud road. This Court cannot compel it to lay a road over the petitioner's property. 9. The Contempt Petition stands dismissed. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5 14.08.2026 Index :Yes/No Internet:Yes/No vsg V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN , J. vsg https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6 Cont.P.No. 136 of 2026 14.08.2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis