Back
2000 Supreme(Mad) 802
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. SHANMUGAM
Mrs. Padmini Sivasubramanian
Versus
Mr. Pankaj Kumar Bansal, I.A.S. Sub-Collector, Taluk Office, Tiruppur, Coimbatore District and 2 others
C.A. No. 281 of 2000
Decided on: 14-08-2000
Mrs. Nalini Chidambaram, Senior Counsel for Applicant.
Mr.Patty B.Jegannathan, Special Government Pleader for Respondent No. 1, Mr.S.V.Jayaraman, Senior Counsel for Respondent No. 2.
The need for accurate communication of court orders and the requirement to show wilful disobedience for a contempt charge.
Headnote:
Contempt of Court - Disobedience of Court Order - Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to prevent the respondents from dispossessing and demolishing properties. The writ petition was dismissed, and the petitioner alleged that the respondents disobeyed the court's order by cancelling pattas and demolishing properties.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner did not accurately communicate the court's order to the respondents and failed to obtain and furnish a copy of the order. The court held that there was no wilful disobedience of the court's order and dismissed the contempt application.
Issues: Alleged disobedience of court order, communication of court's order to respondents, and grounds for contempt application.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for accurate communication of court orders and the requirement to show wilful disobedience for a contempt charge. It also highlighted the fair and summary procedure for contempt matters.
Final Decision: The contempt application was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
1. This is an application to punish respondent 1 to 3 for disobeying the order dated 27.4.2000 passed in W.P. No. 7646 of 2000.
2. Petitioner had filed W.P. No. 7646 of 2000 praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus forbearing respondents 1 and 2 herein or his men or any person claiming under his authority from dispossessing the petitioner from the petition properties and from demolishing the properties situated at Palladam Road, Tiruppur. The writ petition was dismissed at the admission stage holding that there is no cause of action to seek the relief sought for. However, in para 3 of the order, I have observed as follows: The temple, as owners, are entitled to seek removal of encroachers, if any. However, they will have to follow the due process of law before eviction. The notice issued by the Sub-Collector obviously appears to be for cancellation of pattas given to the encroachers ‘ and for further action. The Sub-Collector will pass appropriate orders before ordering removal on merits and in accordance with law. There is no cause of action at present to seek the relief sought for. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.”
3. According to the petitioner, the contents of the above order were brought to the knowledge of respondents 1 and 2 by a letter dated 28.4.2000 addressed by the applicant counsel and he personally met the first respondent on 2.5.2000 and served the letter dated 28.4.2000 and clearly explained the scope of the order of this court and further requested 30 days’ time to produce further document since the applicant has to trace the title more than 100 years old. While so, the first respondent passed an order dated 2.5.2000 received by the petitioner on 5.5.2000 cancelling the patta. Applicant was informed that the superstructure on the petitioner land was going to be demolished and 100 shops including five shops belonging to the petitioner were demolished by the respondents. According to the applicant the above act of demolition was carried out by the first and second respondents inspite of fully knowing and contents and the consequences of the violation of the order of the High Court and hence the above application.
4. The first respondent Mr. Pankaj Kumar Bansal I.A.S., Sub-Collector, Tiruppur. Coimbatore has filed a counter affidavit. According to him, the Executive Officer, Arulmighu Viswesvarasamy and Veeraraghava Perumal Temple. Tiruppur, in his letter dated 3.9.99 that an extent of 1.62 acres of land in S.F. No. 85 of 1981 in Tiruppur Town Village. He has stated that the temple is situated in an extent of 1.62 acres. The built-up area of the building is an extent of 0.62 acres and the remaining one acre of land around the temple compound has been, in due course, assigned to private persons without the knowledge of the temple authorities and requested that the pattas granted to private persons may be ordered to be cancelled. The Collector has also requested to take necessary action and dispose of the matter. Notices were issued for enquiry and the enquiry was conducted on several dates, namely on 31.3.2000. 14.4.2000. 18.4.2000 and 2.5.2000. The petitioner participated in these enquiries and had been requesting time to file counter with the documents. Ultimately, on the last hearing on 2.5.2000, she was absent, but she had already given a petition dated 24.4.2000, the copy of the partition deed. The enquiry of the case was, therefore, completed on 2.5.2000. He has also stated that originally, the land was registered as Koil promboke in the revenue records and subsequently, some of the area has been classified as natham and it has to be construed that the names of the persons found in the ‘Remark’ column are only encroachers. The permanent house site pattas were granted by the Special Tahsildar. Town Survey, Tiruppur to persons noted for business places in the year 1999 without any powers to issue pattas within Municipal limits and for commercial places. These pattas have been grant
