IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
P.N. Prakash, V. Sivagnanam, JJ.
N. Sathyanarayanan and Ors. - Appellants
Vs.
Kalaiselvi and Ors. - Respondent
Contempt Appeal Nos. 7 of 2019, 4, 5, 10 of 2020, C.M.P. No. 26639 of 2019, 5145, 5147 and 7552 of 2020
Decided On : 08-03-2021
Contempt - Government Poramboke Lands - Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, Section 19 - The court discussed the legality of occupying government poramboke lands, the authority to exchange poramboke lands, and the power of the High Court to punish for contempt. The court dismissed the Contempt Appeals as not maintainable due to the absence of a final order in the contempt proceedings and the lack of jurisdiction for the High Court to extinguish statutory rights.
Fact of the Case:
Chettinad Cement sought permission to utilize government poramboke lands, occupied the lands without permission, and filed a writ petition challenging the order to vacate the lands. The Single Judge upheld the order and issued directions for eviction of encroachments. The Division Bench dismissed the appeal and writ petition. The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petitions. Residents filed a Contempt Petition alleging non-compliance with the court's directions. The Government leased waterbodies to Chettinad Cement, leading to the framing of charges against government officials. The Contempt Appeals were filed against the order framing charges.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Contempt Appeals were not maintainable due to the absence of a final order in the contempt proceedings and the lack of jurisdiction for the High Court to extinguish statutory rights.
Issues: The issues involved the legality of occupying government poramboke lands, the authority to exchange poramboke lands, and the power of the High Court to punish for contempt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Contempt Appeals were not maintainable due to the absence of a final order in the contempt proceedings and the lack of jurisdiction for the High Court to extinguish statutory rights.
Final Decision: The Contempt Appeals were dismissed as not maintainable. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions were closed.
JUDGMENT :
P.N. Prakash, J.
1. The facts that are necessary to decide these Contempt Appeals are as under:
"23. This being the view taken by this Court, there is no infirmity as such in respect of the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent/The Sub-Collector, Ariyalur, in proceedings dated 10.02.2015 and accordingly, the writ petition is devoid of merits. However, taking note of the internal correspondences between the Government officials and the manner in which the Government lands including the water bodies are systematically allowed to be encroached by the corporates like the petitioner, this Court is inclined to pass the following orders:
(i) The writ petitioner, admittedly, an encroacher of the Government land, has not established even a semblance of right to grant the relief as such sought for in the present writ petition. Accordingly, the claim of the writ petitioner is rejected.
(ii) The respondents 2 and 3 are directed to evict all the encroachments of the "Government Poramboke lands", "Vari Poramboke lands", "Pond Poramboke lands" and all other public lands in that locality within a period of Two Weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(iii) The Superintendent of Police, Ariyalur, is directed to provide necessary Police protection to the respondents 2 and 3 to evict the encroachers from the public lands in all respects.
(iv) The first respondent is directed to order for an enquiry or investigation to be conducted by an I.A.S. level officer in respect of the conduct of the officials of the District Administration and the officials of the Public Works Department in respect of their conduct, negligence, dereliction of duty, corrupt activities, illegalities and to submit a enquiry report within a period of two Months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(v) On receipt of an Investigation/Enquiry report, the first respondent is directed to initiate all appropriate actions against all the public servants and all other persons concerned under the penal provisions of law and under the Discipline and Appeal Rules.
24. With these directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.
Post this matter "For Reporting Compliance" after two months. Registry is directed to communicate the copy of this order also to the Superintendent of Police, Ariyalur District."
b. Aggrieved by the said order, Chettinad Cement filed Writ Appeal No. 1960 of 2018 and also filed a fresh Writ Petition in W.P. No. 27234 of 2018, for issuance of the Writ of Mandamus directing the Government to consider the proposal of exchange/permission as sought by them with respect to Government poramboke lands. The said Writ Appeal and the Writ Petition were heard by a Division Bench and by a detailed order dated 25.01.2019, the Writ Appeal and the Writ Petition were dismissed with the following observation:
"31. A perusal of the Standing Orders of the Board of Revenue, extrac
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.