@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
T. Raja, J.@mdashThe Writ Petitioners complaining non-compliance of the order passed by this Court in W.P. No. 22910/2009 dated 14.12.2009 filed the present Contempt Petition with the prayer to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondent-Tahsildar, Ambattur Taluk, Tiruvallur District for non-compliance and disobedience of the order passed by this Court.
2. The writ petitioner filed the Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of the writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent to consider the representation dated 03.06.2009 filed by the petitioner seeking to measure and demarcate the property plot No. 8, in S. Nos. 127/4A and 3A, Viswas Nagar, Maduravoyal, Chennai 95.
3. (i) The petitioner is a Power of Attorney holder of (1) Mrs. Molly Alexander, (2) Mrs. Mercy Silva and (3) Ddr. Jacob Mathew who are the legal heirs of Mrs. Thangamma Mathew the original owner of property in Plot No. 8, Viswas Nagar, Maduravoyal, Chennai 95 in Survey Nos. 127/4A and 3A measuring an extent of 4 grounds and 1150 sq.ft. of land. The Tamil Nadu Housing Board initiated acquisition proceedings. But, subsequently the acquisition proceedings were dropped. In the meanwhile, the original owner Thangamma Mathew died. Therefore, the legal heirs were brought on record. A portion of the property was sold by the legal heirs. But in respect of the balance of property they executed a Power of Attorney in favour of the petitioner and the same was registered as Document No. 5203/2006 in the office of S.R.O. at Virugambakkam. A portion of the property was sold by the petitioner in favour of Meenakshisundaram and Sasikumar on 11.12.2006 and the same was registered as Document No. 6768 of 2006 in the office of S.R.O., at Virugambakkam. The said Meenakshisundaram and Sasikumar applied for patta. But, later on, on enquiry they came to know that some portion of their property had been encroached in Plot No. 8 and patta also had been obtained based on some fabricated documents. Therefore, the Tahsildar rejected the application for grant of patta by order dated 03.10.2007. Aggrieved by that, an appeal was filed before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ponneri. The Revenue Divisional Officer after enquiry, being satisfied with the title of the Thangamma Mathew and the subsequent purchasers, Meenakshisundaram and Sasikumar, issued an order cancelling the patta granted in favour of the other third parties and also issued directions directing the appellants before the Revenue Divisional Officer to apply to the Tahsildar to identify, measure and mark the properties of Thangamma Mathew by his order dated 30.4.2009. Thereafter, Meenakshisundaram sent a representation to the respondent to measure and demarcate the property. As nothing was done, the petitioner as Power of Attorney holder also sent a representation on 03.6.2009 requesting the respondent to measure and demarcate the balance 2015 sq.ft. and grant patta. Though the respondent-Tahsildar acknowledged the receipt of representation, no action was taken till the date of filing of the Writ Petition. Therefore, the petitioner was constrained to file W.P. No. 22910/2009.
(ii) This Court having seen that the Revenue Divisional Order has also passed an order cancelling the patta already granted in favour of the third parties accepting the encroachments, agreed with the prayer made by the petitioner allowed the writ petition directing the Tahsildar, Ambattur by giving a simple direction to consider and dispose of the representation dated 03.6.2009 and also to measure and demarcate the property in plot No. 8, in Survey Nos. 127/4A and 3A, Viswas Nagar, Maduravoyal, Chennai 600 095 within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. Even otherwise but for the direction issued by this Court in W.P. No. 22910/2009 dated 14.12.2009 the respondent-Tahsildar of Ambattur Taluk having already received the order from the superior officer-Revenue Divisional Officer to identify, measure and mark the properties of Thangamma Mathew by order dated 30.4.2009 was bound by the abovesaid order. In spite of the order passed by this Court the respondent not only failed to comply the order of this Court and also another order dated 30.4.2009 passed by his superior officer-Revenue Divisional Officer.
4. Indeed this Court after filing the Contempt Petition issued notice on 25.3.2010. The records show that the Government Advocate took notice in the Contempt Petition. Subsequently, the matter was listed on 21.4.2010. On that date at the request of the Government Advocate this Court posted the matter after vacation. Even after two hearings, when the petitioner complained that the order was not complied with, once again on 14.6.2010 this Court issued statutory notice to the respondent. On 12.7.2010, the record shows that the notice issued was returned unserved with an endorsement that the respondent transferred to Chepauk-Chennai. When the statutory notice was issued on 14.6.2010 neither the petitioner nor the respondent''s counsel reported to this Court about the compliance of the order passed by this Court. However, when the matter was posted on 12.7.2010, it was brought to the notice of the Court that the respondent had already complied with the order on 11.6.2010. This was denied by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner stating that the order dated 11.6.2010 is antedated. Not only the respondent Tahsildar never respects this Court''s order but also the order of his own superior officer-Revenue Divisional Officer who has passed an order dated 30.4.2009 to the respondent to identify, measure and mark the properties of Thangamma Mathew. Therefore, the respondent should be suitably punished for non-compliance of any orders.
5. (i) The learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of this case has also relied upon the judgment rendered in
(ii) Further he relied upon another judgment rendered in
(iii) In
(iv) In the judgment dated 09/3/2007 in Appeal (Civil) No. 1256/2007 (All Bengal Excise Licensees v. Raghabendra Singh and Ors.) it is observed that all the respondent Nos. 1-4 are senior and experienced officers and must be presumed to know that under the constitutional scheme of this country orders of the High Court have to be obeyed implicitly and that orders of this Court for that matter any Court should not be trifled with. However, the Court refraining from doing any distasteful decision, by taking a lenient view of the matter, considering the future prospects of the officers by warning informs that they should not indulge in any adventurous act and strictly obey the orders passed by the Court of law. It is further observed that "though this is a fit case for awarding exemplary costs again taking a lenient view, we say, no costs.
6. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent brought to the notice of this Court the judgment of the Supreme Court in
7. Though this Court finds no reason how the respondent Tahsildar can reject the representation since the representation was only to identify, measure and mark the properties of Thangamma Mathew as already ordered by the respondent''s Superior officer-Revenue Divisional Officer, more so, in spite of the direction given by this Court rejecting the prayer of the petitioner is nothing but showing recalcitrant attitude to the petitioner for having initiated restraint proceedings by filing contempt petition. This Court does not want to go into the question whether the order dated 11.6.2010 rejecting the request of the petitioner is an ante-dated or post-dated order. However, by taking a lenient view of the matter, considering his future prospects of the officer this Court by warning the respondent that he shall not indulge in any advert act, but should strictly obey the orders passed by the Court of law, dispose of this Contempt Petition.
8. Prima facie, the contemner has committed disobedience of this Court''s order dated 14.12.2009 directing the respondent Tahsildar, Ambattur Taluk, Thiruvallur District to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 03.6.2009 seeking measurement and demarcation of the property in plot No. 8 in S. Nos. 127/4A and 3A, Viswas Nagar, Maduravoyal, Chennai 600095. Even before this Court''s order dated 14.12.2009, the contemner''s immediate superior officer, namely, Revenue Divisional Officer has already passed an order dated 30.4.2009 directing the respondent to identify, measure and mark the properties of Thangamma Mathew. Admittedly, even the order passed by the superior officer also was not even complied with. Therefore, this Court passed the order dated 14.12.2009 in W.P. No. 22910 of 2009 directing the Tahsildar, Ambattur Taluk to consider and dispose of the said representation of the petitioner dated 03.6.2009 within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. Again the contemner by showing recalcitrant attitude wilfully failed to comply with this Court''s order. Therefore, the petitioner filed Contempt Petition complaining non-implementation of the Court''s order.
9. Notice was issued on the Contempt Petition on 25.3.2010. Again, Contempt Petition was posted for hearing on 21.4.2010. But, no statement was recorded about the compliance of the order. Therefore, this Court again posted the matter after vacation to be listed on 14.6.2010. On 14.6.2010 as the contemner-respondent failed to comply with the order, this Court has chosen to issue statutory notice to the contemner. When the matter came up for hearing on 12.7.2010 again nobody represented that the order was complied with. However, the contemner was present in the Court. After dispensing with his appearance, this Court posted the matter on 19.7.2010. The contemner filed the counter affidavit taking a stand that the certified copy of the order dated 14.12.2009 was not received in their office till the receipt of the Contempt Petition filed by the petitioner. On the other hand, the record from the registry of this Court shows that the notice sent by the registry of this Court on 04.1.2010 to the Tahsildar has been served in the respondent''s office. Further though the said counter did mention that the respondent complied with the order passed by this Court, by passing order dated 11.6.2010, the said statement cannot be correct because even on 14.6.2010 when the matter was posted for compliance of the order and statutory notice was ordered, this Court was not informed about the compliance of the order. Therefore, taking a stand that this Court''s order has been complied with on 11.6.2010 is nothing but an after thought. If really the contemner has complied with the order on 11.6.2010, the same could have been brought to the notice of this Court when the matter was posted on 14.6.2010 on which date this Court issued the statutory notice to the respondent. In any event, the order dated 11.6.2010 alleged to have been passed rejecting the case of the petitioners has to be construed as not only motivated but visited with the malafide motive since the contemner had passed the said order after receiving the notice in the Contempt Proceedings. Therefore, the said order cannot be an impartial order. Only after issuing the statutory notice, the respondent by issuing proceedings with the ante-dated order attempted to escape from the contempt proceedings. Therefore, this Court is not convinced with the explanation offered by the respondent. Further, a direction was issued to dispose of the representation. Therefore, when the respondent Tahsildar, Ambattur Taluk failed to dispose of the representation as directed by this Court and failed to even comply with the order passed by his own superior officer, namely, the Revenue Divisional Officer, dated 30.4.2009, this Court finds that the respondent has committed contempt of non-compliance of the order dated 14.12.2009.
10. When a conflict between both parties to a proceeding is over finally and thereafter if the writ order holder brings to the Court again the non-implementation or non-compliance of the order by way of contempt and thereafter once the contempt notice is issued against the alleged contemner, the conflict stands between the court and the contemner only. In the present case, the contemner by stating that he has complied with this Court''s order on 11.6.2010 itself is a clear proof that he violated the order dated 14.12.2009. That itself proves beyond doubt that he has deliberately violated the court''s order. This Court allowed the writ petition on 14.12.2009 by directing the only respondent Tahsildar, Ambattur to dispose off the petitioner''s representation dated 03.6.2009 as already directed by his higher officer officer dated 30.4.2009. Complaining non-compliance the petitioner filed Contempt Petition on 22.3.2010. This Court issued Contempt Notice on 25.3.2010. Records from the Registry of this Court also discloses that notice issued by this Registry on 04.1.2010 was served in the office of the respondent Tahsildar herein. Yet, no compliance report was filed. Third time this Court issued statutory notice on 14.6.2010 calling upon the contemner to be present in the Court to reply as to why he should not be proceeded for non-implementation of the Court''s order and only thereafter the contemner filed his reply admitting that he has complied with the order dated 14.12.2009 on 11.6.2010. That itself clearly proves the fact that till Contempt Notice which was served upon him on 14.6.2010, he had failed to comply with this Court''s order. Therefore, the respondent''s counter affidavit stating that he had complied with the order of this Court on 11.6.2010 and thereby rejecting the representation of the writ petitioner for measurement and identification of his land during the pendency of contempt proceedings is a clear proof of non-compliance of the court''s order and also the mala fide attitude of the contemner. Hence, this Court finds the contemner guilty of violation of this Court''s order dated 14.12.2009.
11. This Court while dealing with the Contempt Proceedings in the case of Palaniammal N. v. Antony Jayaraj 2006 (5) CTC 224 has held thus in para 20:
20. A litigant before the Court cannot and should not consider that the Court proceedings is a game of chess. Every order of the Court is required to be interpreted in a fair and reasonable manner keeping in view the entire background of a particular case and no litigant should try to take advantage of some technical loophole. Every decision of a Court can be challenged in a Court of Appeal and the effect of any inconvenient order can be got over by taking recourse to the normal procedure available. Where an order becomes final, either because it is not challenged or even if challenged, not interfered with, it is the duty of the litigant to obey the order in letter and spirit.
This Court passed a direction to the Tahsildar, Ambattur to dispose of the petitioner''s representation dated 03.06.2009 which requested measurement and identification of properties of Thangamma Mathew as already ordered by the respondent''s superior officer-Revenue Divisional Officer dated 30.4.2009. It appears that the respondent neither complied with the order passed by this Court nor the order passed by his superior officer.
12. In that view of the matter, to meet the ends of justice, though I refrain from punishing him by taking a lenient view of considering the future prospects of the Officer, the respondent Tahsildar, Ambattur Taluk, Ambattur is directed to pay the cost of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the petitioner towards the cost of expenses of the Contempt Proceedings within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and he is further directed to measure, identify and mark the properties Thangamma Mathew as already ordered by the Revenue Divisional Officer in his order dated 30.4.2009 which is in any event to be obeyed as a matter of duty towards his higher officer.
13. This Contempt Petition is disposed of with the above direction. Consequently, Sub-Application No. 110/2010 is closed.
14. When a conflict between both parties to a proceeding is over finally and thereafter if the writ order holder brings to the Court again the non-implementation or non-compliance of the order by way of contempt and thereafter once the contempt notice is issued against the alleged contemner, the conflict stands between the court and the contemner only.
15. In the present case, the contemner by stating that he has complied with this Court''s order on 11.6.2010 itself is a clear proof that he violated the order dated 14.12.2009. That itself proves beyond doubt that he has deliberately violated the court''s order. This Court allowed the writ petition on 14.12.2009 by directing the only respondent Tahsildar, Ambattur to dispose off the petitioner''s representation dated 03.6.2009 as already directed by his higher officer officer dated 30.4.2009. Complaining non-compliance the petitioner filed Contempt Petition on 22.3.2010. This Court issued Contempt Notice on.... Records from the Registry of this Court also discloses that notice issued by this Registry was served in the office of the respondent on.... Yet no compliance report was filed. Third time this Court issued statutory notice on 14.6.2010 calling upon the contemner to be present in the Court to reply as to why he should not be proceeded for non-implementation of the Court''s order and only therefter the contemner filed his reply admitting that he has complied with the order dated 14.12.2009 on 11.6.2010. That itself clearly proves the fact that till Contempt Notice which was served upon him on 14.6.2010, he had failed to comply with this Court''s order. Therefore, the respondent''s counter affidavit stating that he had complied with the order of this Court on 11.6.2010 and thereby rejecting the representation of the writ petitioner for measurement and identification of his land during the pendency of contempt proceedings is a clear proof of non-compliance of the court''s order and also the mala fide attitude of the contemner. Hence, this Court finds the contemner guilty of violation of this Court''s order dated 14.12.2009.
