Back
2007 Supreme(Mad) 3453
Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
P.K. MISRA & P.R. SHIVAKUMAR
R. Ponnathal & Another
Versus
P. Lingiyar & Others
Contempt Petition (MD) No.167 of 2007
Decided On : 03-11-2007
For the Petitioners:G. Prabhu Rajadurai, Advocate. For the Respondents:R1 to R3, S. Ramasamy, Additional Advocate General For R. Janakiramalu Special Government Pleader, R4,Veerakathiravan for K. Ashok Kumar Ram, Advocates.
The judgment establishes the principle that conflicting court orders and legal advice may be considered in determining wilful disobedience of a court order.
Headnote:
Contempt of Court - Violation of Injunction Order - Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, Sections 10, 11, 12
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners filed a contempt petition against the respondents for violating an order of injunction passed by the Subordinate Judge. The respondents, including the President of Kallimandayam Panchayat, were involved in the removal of alleged encroachments despite the injunction.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the first respondent's actions were not wilful disobedience, considering the conflicting orders from the High Court and the Civil Court. The court acquitted respondents 1 to 3 but convicted the fourth respondent for wilful disobedience of the injunction order.
Issues: The main issue was whether the respondents committed wilful disobedience of the injunction order, leading to contempt of court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the conflicting orders from the High Court and the Civil Court, the actions of the respondents, and the legal advice given to the first respondent. The court accepted the unconditional apology of the first respondent but convicted the fourth respondent for wilful disobedience.
Final Decision: The court acquitted respondents 1 to 3 and convicted the fourth respondent, imposing a fine of Rs.2,000 to be paid as compensation to the petitioners.
P.R. Shivakumar, J.
1. The petitioners have approached this Court by invoking Sections 10,11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for punishing the respondents 1 to 3 for the alleged acts of contempt committed by them in violation of the order of injunction passed by the Subordinate Judge, Palani in I.A.No.246 of 2006 in O.S.No.98 of 2006. However, the fourth respondent herein has been impleaded suo motu by order of this Court dated 21.08.2007.
2. The facts giving rise to the initiation of the proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act can be stated, briefly, as follows:
(i) The property measuring hectares 2.77.5 comprised in Old Survey No.391/B1 in Kallimandayam Village had originally been classified as village natham in revenue records. In the UDR Scheme, the said survey number was sub-divided into 21 parts and New Survey Nos,1529/1 to 1529/21 were assigned. Survey No.1529/1 has been classified as Odai and the rest of the sub-divisions, namely Survey Nos.1529/2 to 1529/21 have been classified as house sites. The petitioners herein have been issued pattas in respect of Survey No.1529/9 and Survey No.1529/16 respectively.
(ii) The fourth respondent herein, the then President of Kallimandayam Panchayat, questioning the correctness of the sub-divisions and assignment of pattas, moved an application before the Revenue Divisional officer, Palani for cancellation of the pattas issued in respect of all 20 sub-divisions, namely 1529/2 to 1529/21. Accordingly, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Palani passed an order on 12.10.2000, cancelling the pattas in respect of all the above said 20 sub-divisions and more particularly the pattas issued in favour of the petitioners herein in respect of Survey Nos.1529/9 and 1529/16.
(iii) As against the said order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Palani, the petitioners herein and others preferred a revision before the District Revenue Officer, Dindigul, who in turn by his order dated 04.01.2002 remanded the matter back to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Palani with a direction to make a spot visit and then decide after giving a reasonable opportunity to the revision petitioners therein to represent their case. The relevant portion of the order in vernacular language is extracted here under:
(iv) Thereafter, the fourth respondent herein filed a writ petition in W.P.No.42786/2002 in the High Court of Madras for a writ of Mandamus directing the implementation of the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, dated 12.10.2000 suppressing the fact that the said order of the Revenue Divisional officer had already been set aside by the District Revenue Officer and the matter had been remanded to the Revenue Divisional Officer for fresh disposal. Obviously the fourth respondent, did not implead either of the petitioners herein or any one of the persons in whose favour pattas had been issued in respect of the above said sub-divisions as parties to the writ petition. Under such circumstances, this Court, after hearing the counsel for the petitioner in the said writ petition (fourth respondent herein) and the learned Additional Government Pleader, passed an order on 29.11.2002 directing removal of the encroachments. Admittedly the said order was passed without any notice to either of the petitioners herein.
(v) Thereafter the petitioners 1 and 2 herein filed W.P.Nos.773 of 2003 and 2233 of 2003 respectively, to restrain the authorities from initiating any action based on the order of the Revenue Divisional Order dated 12.10.2000. They also filed miscellaneous petitions praying for interim injunction pending disposal of the writ petitions. Of course initially interim injunction had been granted in both the petitions. Subsequently, by an order dated 18.08.2003 the interim injunctions were made absolute, but with an observation that the respondents therein would be at liberty to remove the encroachments made in the channel poramboke. Both the writ petitions are still pending.
(vi) Meanwh
