IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 26.04.2011
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU
Cont.P.No.28 of 2011
N.Muthu Gounder .. Petitioner
Vs
1 Mr.Palanisamy
The District Collector
Villupuram Collectorate
Villupuram District
2 Mr.Nagabhusana Selvaraj
The Revenue Divisional Officer
Revenue Divisional Office
Kallakurichi
Villupuram District
3. Mr.M.Mani
The Tahsildar
Tahsildar Office
Kallakurichi
Villupuram District
.. Respondents
Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act to punish the respondents for willful disobedience of the order of the Hon'ble Court dated 11.8.2009 made in W.P.No.13565 of 2009.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Tamilavel
For Respondents : Mr.R.Murali, G.A.
O R D E R
The petitioner filed the Writ Petition No.13565 of 2009 seeking for a direction to remove the encroachment made by the 4th respondent in the Writ Petition. In the Writ Petition, the District Collector, Villupuram, Revenue Divisional Officer, Kallakurichi and the Tahsildar, Kallakurichi were made parties as respondents 1 to 3. This Court found that there was disputed questions of fact. The petitioner having sent a representation to the respondents 1 to 3, in the Writ Petition instead of deciding the claim of the petitioner on merits, the petitioner was allowed to approach the 3rd respondent Tahsildar, Kallakurichi for disposal of the representation preferred by him. The 3rd respondent was directed to issue notice to all the parties and pass a detailed order and communicate the decision to the petitioner. A time frame was fixed for the same.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to the direction, the Tahsildar conducted an enquiry and issued a notice under the Land Encroachment Act. In the meanwhile, the private respondent in the Writ Petition had filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.20250 of 2009 before this Court claiming that he was the absolute owner of the property and therefore, notice issued under Section 6 of the Land Encroachment Act, 1905 was invalid. In that Writ Petition, only the Tahsildar, Kallakurichi alone was made as party. When that Writ Petition came up, the present petitioner got himself impleaded as party and the Writ Petition was disposed on 3.2.2010. This Court set aside the notice issued by the Tahsildar and the matter was remanded for consideration in accordance with law.
3. The petitioner thereafter sent a legal notice to the Tahsildar and other respondents stating that they have disobeyed the order passed by this Court dated 11.8.2009 and 3.2.2010. Though the legal notice sent to the respondents referred to both orders, in the present Contempt Petition only the earlier order passed by this Court dated 11.8.2009 in W.P.NO.13565 of 2009 alone is referred to.
4. It is not clear as to how any contempt can be filed against the respondents pursuant to the proceedings issued under the Land Encroachment Act and the private respondent had filed a Writ Petition challenging the said notice and the notice issued by the Tahsildar was also set aside by this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner merely contended that the Tahsildar on an earlier occasion clearly submitted before this Court that it was an encroachment and since the encroachment has not been removed, they are liable to be punished. Either in the order dated 11.8.2009 or in the order dated 3.2.2010, there was any direction to the Tahsildar to remove the encroachment. In the first case, the Tahsildar was merely directed to consider the case of both sides. In the second case, the land encroacher succeeded and this Court set aside the notice issued under Section 6 of the Land Encroachment Act.
5. In a Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 r/w 2(b) of the Act, only the petitioner should establish that there was an order in his favour and the said order has been disobeyed and the disobedience was willful. In this context, it is necessary to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dinesh Kumar Gupta vs. United India Insurance Company Limited and others reported in (2010) 12 SCC 770.
6. In view of the fact that there has been no order, which has been disobeyed by the respondents and the respondents have actually implemented the order passed by this Court, there is no necessity to proceed with the contempt. Hence the Contempt Petition is misconceived and it stands dismissed.
26.04.2011
Index:Yes
Internet:Yes
ajr
To
1 Mr.Palanisamy
The District Collector
Villupuram Collectorate
Villupuram District
2 Mr.Nagabhusana Selvaraj
The Revenue Divisional Officer
Revenue Divisional Office
Kallakurichi
Villupuram District
3. Mr.M.Mani
The Tahsildar
Tahsildar Office
Kallakurichi
Villupuram District
K.CHANDRU,J.
ajr
Cont.P.No.28 of 2011
26.04.2011