Such conduct held does not full under the proviso to section 10.

K.A. Swami, CJ.

In this petition under Secs. 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, the petitioner has prayed for punishing the respondent for his intentional and wilful obstruction in giving effect to an order of attachment of movables ordered in R.E.P.No.99 of 1994 in L.A.O.P.No.135 of 1990 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Namakkal.

2. Two bits of land belonging to the petitioner, comprised in Survey No.545/7 and 546/3 measuring 0.41 and 1.78 acres respectively, totalling 2.19 acres, situate in Chandrasekarapurah village, Rasipuram Taluk, Salem District, were acquired for the purpose of providing houses to the persons belonging to Adi Dravidar community. An award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer awarding a compensation of Rs.52,218. The possession of the lands was taken by the Government on 3. 1990, pursuant to the award. Aggrieved by the said award, the complainant sought for a reference to the Civil Court. Accordingly, the case was referred under Sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, to the Sub Court, Namakkal. The reference was registered as L.A.O.P.No.135 of 1990. The Sub Court, Namakkal enhanced the compensation to Rs.5,73,277.83, with interest at 9% per annum from 3. 1990, for a period of one year and at 15% per annum for the subsequent period till the date of realisation, less Rs.25. It was this award which was put into execution in R.E.P.No.99 of 1994, in which the petitioner had prayed for attachment of the following movable properties:

A Jeep No.T.M.T. 5852 belonging to the Tamil Nadu State and under the custody and possession of Namakkal Divisional Development Officer -Value Rs.50,000.

Tables - 10, Chairs - 25, Electric fans -10, Typewriting machines - 3, available at the Revenue

Divisional Officer’s Office, Namakkal - value Rs.30,000.

On 24. 1994, though served, the respondent in the Execution Petition was absent, therefore he was set ex parte and an order for attachment of the aforesaid movables was issued. As the attachment was not effected the warrant was re-issued on 7. 1994, returnable by 8. 1994. Even then, the attachment was not effected for want of police aid. The petition filed by the petitioner seeking police aid was allowed only on 110. 1995.

On 12. 1994 it was ordered that the attachment be effected by 11. 1995 and the same was not effected because the Personal Assistant to the respondent did not allow it to be effected and made the following endorsement:

"Necessary action is being taken. The entire amount will be remitted in a fort-night. In the meantime the execution of warrant may kindly be stopped in the public interest."

The Bailiff returned the warrant of attachment with the following sherrah, dated 6. 1994:

"On 6. 1994 went to village and the address named here to effect the attachment and came to know that the Jeep has gone to a camp and since an endorsement is made as above and the attachment was obstructed the attachment warrant is returned without executing it and along with the endorsement of the officer."

The petitioner then filed an application on 8. 1994 stating that the respondent had refused to allow the attachment of the properties and obstructed to effect the same, and, therefore, he prayed for directing police assistance for effecting the attachment. That application was allowed only on 12. 1994 and the attachment was directed to be effected with police aid and the same be returned by 11. 1995. However, the police did not render assistance on the ground that the order for rendering police assistance should come from the Superintendent of Police, therefore, the Bailiff returned the warrant on 1. 1995 with the following sherrah:

"On 1. 95 went to the said village stated herein, along with the petitioner herein to effect the said attachment warrant for effecting attachment and for police aid, the said police station were approached as it was stated that police aid can be given only if the order comes from the Superintendent of Police, the attachment could no