IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 15.4.2008 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Contempt Petition No.162 of 2004 M/s.Mahaveer Metal Industries a registered Partnership firm rep. by its partner Mr.Champalal No.182, Mint Street, Chennai-600 003 .. Petitioner vs. Thiru S.Chandramohan I.A.S., The Competent Authority District Revenue Officer District Collector Tiruvallur District, Tiruvallur (The respondent is deleted as per order dated 7.4.2004, in the above contempt petition) 1. Mr.S.Jawahar Shanthakumar The Competent Authority District Revenue Officer District Collector, Tiruvallur 2. The Senior Manager Canara Bank Karanodai Branch, Red Hills 3. Mr.Shanthilal S/o.Aydanji Plot No.8, 2nd Floor, Shiv Smruti Buildings, Mahesh Park, Gokul Nagar Bhiwandi District, Thane (The respondents 1 and 2 impleaded as per order, dated 30.4.2004, in the above contempt petition) The third respondent impleaded as per order, dated 18.6.2004, in the above contempt petition) .. Respondents The Contempt Petition has been filed under Section 10 & 12 of The Contempt of Courts Act, 70/71, to punish the respondent for acting in contempt of the order of this Court dated 24.9.2003 in W.P.No.6438 of 2003. For petitioner : Mr.R.Thyagarajan Senior Advocate for Mr.P.K.Sivasubramanian For respondents : Mr.K.Sridhar for R1 Mr.N.Nithyanandham for R2 Mr.T.V.Ramanujam Senior Advocate for Mr.A.Muthukumar for R3 O R D E R This contempt petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to punish the respondents for acting in contempt of the order of this Court, dated 24.9.2003, made in W.P.No.6438 of 2003. 2. It has been stated by the petitioner that the lands situated in No.34 Madhavaram village, bearing Nanja survey No.1280/1A, measuring 0.05.0 Hares and Survey No.1318/1A measuring 0.14.5 Hares, belonging to the petitioner had been acquired by the Highways Authority of India, through the respondent Competent Authority, on the basis of the paper publication made, on 3.12.2002. The petitioner had preferred a claim for compensation, on 17.2.2003, and the said claim had not been taken up for enquiry, as required under law and therefore, the petitioner had filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.6438 of 2003, praying for a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner, dated 17.2.2003. This Court had directed the respondent to hold an enquiry on the representation of the petitioner, dated 17.2.2003, and to pass appropriate orders thereon, within 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order, after giving due notice to the petitioner as well as the third respondent. 3. It is further stated by the petitioner that on the basis of the order passed by this Court, the petitioner had sent a notice, dated 22.10.2003, along with a copy of the order of this Court, dated 24.9.2003, and the same had been received by the respondent, on 25.10.2003. There was no response from the respondent, except the letter, dated 17.12.2003, sent by the District Collector, Tiruvallur District, stating that the notice sent by the petitioner, along with a copy of the order of this Court, dated 24.9.2003, had been sent to the Special Tahsildar, (LA), National Highways, Tiruvallur. Since there was no further response thereafter, either from the respondent or from the Special Tahsildar, (LA), National Highways, Tiruvallur, the petitioner had sent another notice, dated 19.12.2003, and the same had been acknowledged by the Special Tahsildar, (LA), National Highways, Tiruvallur, on 22.12.2003. 4. It is further stated that in spite of the time granted by this Court to hold an enquiry on the representation of the petitioner, dated 17.2.2003, having expired on 17.4.2003, the respondent had not complied with the order of this Court, dated 24.9.2003. Thus, the respondent had deliberately committed an act of contempt of the order of this Court, dated 24.9.2003, made in W.P.No.6438 of 2003. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present contempt petition. 5. By a Sub Application No.145 of 2004, the petitioner had prayed for impleading one Jawahar Shanthakumar, competent authority and District Revenue Officer, National Highways, as a respondent in the contempt petition and to punish him for acting in contempt of the order of this Court, dated 27.2.2003, made in W.P.M.P.No.8281 of 2003 in W.P.No.6438 of 2003. 6. Another Sub Application had been filed in Sub Application No.146 of 2004, for issuing of notice to Shanthilal at Flat No.8, Second Floor, Shiv Smruti Buildings, Mahesh Park, Gokul Nagar, Bhiwandi District, Thane, for acting in contempt of the order of this Court made in W.P.M.P.No.8281 of 2003 in W.P.No.6438 of 2003, dated 27.2.2003 and W.P.M.P.No.8952 of 2003, in W.P.No.6438 of 2003, dated 3.3.2003. 7. The petitioner had also filed another Sub Application in Sub Application No.147 of 2004, praying that this Court may be pleased to direct the freezing of the funds in the bank account of Shanthilal with Syndicate Bank, Gokul Nagar Branch, Gokul Nagar, Bhiwandi District, Thane. 8. The Sub Application No.148 of 2004, had also been filed by the petitioner to issue notice to the Senior Manager, Canara Bank, Karonodai Branch, Red Hills, and punish him for acting in contempt of the order of this Court, dated 3.3.2003, in W.P.M.P.No.8281 of 2003, in W.P.No.6438 of 2003. All the above petitions had been ordered by this Court, on 30.4.2004. 9. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent in the above contempt petition, it has been stated that he had not disobeyed the orders of this Court, dated 27.2.2003, made in W.P.M.P.No.8282 of 2003 in W.P.No.6438 of 2003. 10. It has also been stated that he has the greatest regard for this Court and that if this Court comes to the conclusion that he had, in some way, disobeyed the order, he may be purged of contempt as he was tendering an unconditional apology. In the writ petition W.P.No.6438 of 2003, the petitioner had prayed for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus to direct the first respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner by their letter, dated 17.2.2003, and to pass orders with regard to the person, who was entitled to the payment of compensation for the land acquired pursuant to the notification published in the Tamil Daily, dated 2.12.2002 and for an order of interim injunction restraining the first respondent from making payment of compensation for the land acquired situated at No.34, Madhavaram village, bearing Nanja land S.No.1280/1A, measuring 0.05.0 hectares and S.No.1318/1A, measuring 0.14.5 hectares to the third respondent till the passing of the order in the claim made by the petitioner in their letter, dated 17.2.2003. 11. When the said writ petition came up for admission, on 27.2.2003, this Court was pleased to pass orders as follows: "The matter shall be listed, on 19.3.2003, to enable the counsel for the respondents to obtain instructions. In the meantime, there shall be an order of interim direction directing the first respondent not to make any payment to any person" 12. In the said writ petition, the first respondent was shown as the competent authority, District Revenue Officer, District Collector, Tiruvallur District, Tiruvallur. The order passed by this Court was communicated to the District Collector, Tiruvallur, as indicated in the cause title. The said order was received by the office of the District Collector, on 3.3.2003, and thereafter, it was communicated to the present respondent only on 13.3.2003. 13. It is also stated that Mr.Jawahar Shantha Kumar, the first respondent herein, had been transferred from his station as District Revenue Officer, Tiruvallur, on 31.3.2003, and he was relieved from the post on the same day and he had joined in the post of Programme Director, Anna Institute of Management, Chennai. 14. It has also been stated that he had served as the District Revenue Officer, Competent Authority, under the National Highways Act, from 27.3.2002 to 31.3.2003, and therefore, he had no role to play in the matter. The contempt petition has been filed after the dismissal of the main writ petition W.P.No.6438 of 2003, on 24.9.2003. He had not received any notice, nor was he shown as a party in the contempt petition at the stage of the initial filing. 15. It has been further stated that the award under Section 3(d) of The National Highways Act, 1956, had been passed, on 5.12.2002, and the order for payments to the owners was made by proceedings R.C.No.7/2001, dated 14.1.2003. Thereafter, necessary cheques were prepared and the land owners concerned had been informed about the payment be made. The letter of objection from the petitioner had been received only on 21.2.2003, more than two months after the award had been passed. Even though there was no legal provision to hear any objection at that stage, as the order made by the competent authority was final as per Sub Section (2) of 3C of The National Highways Act, 1956, a legal opinion had been obtained from the City Government Pleader before the cheques had been issued to Mr.Shanthilal. The cheques had been handed over to Mr.Shanthilal, on 27.2.2003. The competent authority and the Special Tahsildar, (NH), had been informed of the stay order passed by this Court only on 13.3.2003, nearly two weeks after the cheques had been issued to Mr.Shanthi lal. 16. It has also been stated that only on 13.3.2003, the respondent had received a notice from the petitioner's counsel, dated 1.3.2003. It was served on the office of the District Collector, Tiruvallur, who had received it on 3.3.2003. Even before the notice was communicated, the cheques had been issued to the third respondent, on 27.2.2003. 17. It has also been submitted that this Court had passed an order, dated 24.9.2003, directing the first respondent therein, to hold an enquiry on the representation of the petitioner, dated 17.2.2003, after giving due notice to the petitioner as well as to the third respondent and to pass appropriate orders thereon, within 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. After receiving the order, the competent authority, had considered the representation of the petitioner, dated 17.2.2003 and had passed a final order, on 29.3.2004. 18. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the impleaded third respondent, it has been stated that he has utmost respect for the orders of this Court and therefore, he had never disobeyed the orders passed by this Court. He has stated that the contempt petition has been filed stating that he had disobeyed the order of this Court, dated 24.9.2003, made in W.P.No.6438 of 2003. 19. He has also stated that he had not been served with the copy of the order, dated 24.9.2003. In fact, he had come to know about the order, on 16.6.2004, after he had received the notice in the Sub Application No.146 of 2004, for the hearing, on 18.6.2004. He had appeared before this Court and requested for time for filing a counter. On 18.6.2004, an order had been passed which is as follows: "Pending further order the 3rd respondent impleaded is directed to reimburse Rs.1 crore, which he had drawn from Syndicate Bank, Sowcarpet Branch within 2 weeks from today. That apart Regional Manager of Canara Bank is directed to refer the matter to the Vigilance Cell to enquire into the entire transaction relating to the disbursement of 1 crore in spite of passing of the order, which was communicated by the contempt petitioner by telegram dated 27.2.2003 and as to the lapses and irregularity or illegality committed in this regard and report the matter into this Court within 2 weeks Post after 2 weeks." 20. Even though the third respondent was not a party in the contempt petition, he was subsequently impleaded. This Court had not passed any order against the third respondent in W.P.No.6438 of 2003 since the order, dated 24.9.2003, was only against the competent authority, namely, the first respondent in the said writ petition. In such circumstances, the third respondent in the above petition is neither a necessary authority nor a proper party in the contempt petition. As per the orders of this Court, dated 24.9.2003, made in W.P.No.6438 of 2003, the competent authority, namely, the District Revenue Officer, had passed an order, dated 29.3.2004, holding that the third respondent is the owner of the property which had been acquired and that he is entitled to the compensation. The said order had been produced by the petitioner when C.M.P.No.12010 of 2003, in Contempt Appeal No.6 of 2004, had come up for hearing before the First Bench of this Court. Since the order of this Court, dated 24.9.2003, had been complied with, the contempt petition is liable to be dismissed. The Sub Application No.146 of 2004, dated 15.4.2004, is not maintainable in law, since it has been filed beyond the period of limitation of one year, as provided under Section 20 of The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The Sub Application had been filed, on 15.4.2004, for the alleged violation of the orders passed by this Court, on 27.2.2003 and 3.3.2003, made in W.P.M.P.No.8281 of 2003 and W.P.M.P.No.8952 of 2003, respectively. Since the main writ petition W.P.No.6438 of 2003, had been disposed of on 24.9.2003, the interim orders passed in W.P.M.P.No.8281 of 2003 and W.P.M.P.No.8952 of 2003, have merged with the final orders. In fact, on the date of the filing of the sub applications, the interim orders were not in force. 21. It has also been stated by the third respondent that he is the absolute owner of the property in question which he had purchased by a registered sale deed, dated 25.10.1966. Since the said land had been acquired by the High Ways Department, under the National Highways Act, 1956, he was entitled to the compensation. The competent authority, after pursuing all the necessary documents and after conducting an enquiry, had passed an award, dated 14.1.2003, in favour of the third respondent. 22. It has also been stated that prior to the passing of the award, it had been notified, on 3.12.2002, and an enquiry had been conducted. In pursuance of the award, the competent authority had issued a cheque, dated 17.2.2003, for a sum of Rs.37,43,167/- for the acquisition of 17 cents. The said cheque was presented by the third respondent to be deposited in his account with the Syndicate Bank, Mint Street, Chennai, and it was credited in his account in the regular course. The third respondent was not aware of the order, dated 27.2.2003, passed in W.P.M.P.No.8281 of 2003, in W.P.No.6438 f 2003. A second cheque, for Rs.1,08,55,186/- had been issued, on 27.2.2003, as the compensation for acquiring 40 cents of land belonging to the third respondent. Since there was no order against the third respondent or against the Syndicate Bank and since it was not communicated, either to the third respondent or to the said Bank, the cheque issued to the third respondent by the competent authority had been credited to the account of the third respondent in due course. In such circumstances, the allegations made by the petitioner are without merit or substance. However, the third respondent had stated that he is tendering an unconditional apology if, for some reason, this Court finds that he had committed contempt of Court. 23. The main contention of the petitioner is that in spite of the knowledge of the order passed by this Court, on 24.9.2003, in W.P.No.6438 of 2003, the competent authority, the first respondent in the contempt petition had conspired to issue two cheques to the third respondent as the compensation amount for the land acquired by the Special Tahsildar (LA), National Highways. 24. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had further submitted that the malafide intention of the competent authority is quite clear from the undue haste in which the said authority had acted in its attempt to disburse the compensation amount to the third respondent, instead of following the procedures provided in the relevant provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956. It was pointed out that the competent authority had failed to follow the procedures prescribed, under Sections 3G and 3H of the National Highways Act, 1956, in determination of the amount payable as compensation and to decide the question as to who would be the persons interested in the land acquired to be eligible to receive the compensation amount. 25. It is further contended that since there was a dispute as to who would be the person who would be eligible for the compensation amount it was necessary for the competent authority, the first respondent in the present contempt petition, to conduct an enquiry and to find out as to who was the person interested in the land acquired and whether he would be eligible for the compensation amount. 26. Considering the fact that such an enquiry was necessary before the competent authority came to a conclusion, this Court had passed the order, dated 24.9.2003, in W.P.No.6438 of 2003, stating as follows: "The petitioner seeks a writ of Mandamus to direct the first respondent to consider its letter dated 17.2.2003 claiming compensation for the land situated at No.34, Madhavaram Village bearing Nanja Survey Nos.1280/1A and 1318/1A measuring 0.05.0 and 1.14.5 hectare respectively after due notice to it. 2. It is not in dispute that the lands located in survey Nos.1280/1A and 1318/1A Madhavaram Village, measuring an extent of 0.05.0 and 0.14.5 hectare respectively were acquired by the first respondent. However, the dispute is with respect to the payment of compensation either to the petitioner or to the third respondent. 3. Concededly, the representation of the petitioner for payment of compensation dated 17.2.2003 is pending before the first respondent. Therefore, suffice it to direct the first respondent to hold an enquiry on the said representation of the petitioner, dated 17.2.2003, after giving due notice to the petitioner as well as to the third respondent and pass appropriate orders within sixty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, WPMP Nos.8281, 8952 and 25914 of 2003 are closed." 27. However, without adhering to the directions issued by this Court, by its order, dated 24.9.2003, the competent authority had gone ahead to issue two cheques, on 28.2.2003 and 3.3.2003, to the third respondent, for a sum of Rs.37,43,167/- and Rs.1,08,55,186/-, respectively. The compensation amount had been fixed without any notice being given to the petitioner, in spite of a claim letter, dated 17.2.2003, having been sent stating that the petitioner firm is the owner of the land acquired. 28. It was also pointed out by the petitioner that the patta and the original sale deed, dated 25.10.1966, relating to the lands acquired were with the petitioner. It was also stated that the petitioner had obtained an order of interim injunction in W.P.M.P.No.8281 of 2003 in W.P.No.6438 of 2003, restraining the competent authority, namely, the District Revenue Officer, Tiruvallur, from making payment of the compensation to the third respondent and the petitioner had also obtained another order, dated 3.3.2003 in W.P.M.P.No.8952 of 2003 in W.P.No.6438 of 2003, wherein, an interim direction had been issued to the Senior Manager, the Canara Bank, Karanodai Branch, restraining him from payment of compensation to the third respondent. 29. It was also stated that the third respondent, having come down to Chennai from Bombay, had made arrangements, fraudulently, to get the compensation amount from the competent authority in collusion with S.Jawahar Shanthakumar, the District Revenue Officer, Tiruvallur, stating before the competent authority that he had lost the original sale deed, dated 25.10.1966 and the original patta, on 23.2.2003 at Ponneri Taluk office in a Tea stall. He had given a police complaint, on 23.2.2003, and had obtained a certified copy of the sale deed from the Sub Registrar, on 23.2.2003. A legal opinion had also been obtained from the Government Pleader, on 27.2.2003, on which date an order of interim injunction was granted by this Court. A copy of the claim for compensation, dated 17.2.2003, preferred by the petitioner had also been sent to the Highways Authorities. On 28.2.2003, in spite of the order of interim injunction granted by this Court, a cheque for Rs.37,43,167/- had been handed over to the third respondent. Further, The Senior Manager, Karanodai Branch, Chennai, who was impleaded as the respondent in the above contempt petition, as per the order of this Court, dated 30.4.2004, had also committed contempt of Court as he had wilfully disobeyed the order passed by this Court, on 3.3.2003, made in W.P.M.P.No.8952 of 2003 in W.P.No.6438 of 2003, which is as follows: "The Canara Bank, Karanodai Branch is directed not to make payment to Mr.Shanthilal, S/o.Aydanji, No.121, NSC Bose Road, Chennai-79, third respondent in respect of the cheque relating to land acquisition issued by (1) The Competent Authority, District Revenue Officer, District Collector, Tiruvallur District and (2) State of Tamil Nadu rep by its Secretary, Transport and Highways Department, New Delhi/respondents 1 and 2. The mattet shall be listed on 10.3.2003 for further orders." 30. In spite of the order passed by this Court, on 3.3.2003, the second respondent had acted contrary to the said order and permitted the third respondent to encash the cheque issued by the competent authority for a sum of Rs.1,08,55,186/-. The third respondent, who had received total compensation amount of Rs.1,45,98,353/- by way of two cheques by fraudulent means, contrary to the orders passed by this Court, is also liable to be punished for contempt of Court. In such circumstances, the petitioner had filed a Sub Application No.146 of 2004, for an order of direction to freeze the funds in the bank account of the third respondent with the Syndicate Bank, shown as the garnishee and to punish the contemnor for acting in contempt of the orders of this Court, made in W.P.M.P.No.8281 of 2003, dated 27.2.2003 and W.P.M.P.No.8952 of 2003, dated 3.3.2003. 31. The petitioner had filed a Sub Application No.145 of 2007, praying that this Court may be pleased to implead S.Jawahar Shanthakumar, the Competent Authority, District Revenue Officer, National Highways, as a respondent in the contempt petition and to punish him for acting in contempt of the order of this Court, dated 27.2.2003, made in W.P.M.P.No.8281 of 2003 in W.P.No.6438 of 2003 and another sub application in Sub Application No.147 of 2004, praying that this Court may be pleased to freeze the funds in the bank account of Shanthilal with the Syndicate Bank, Gokul Nagar Branch, Gokul Nagar, Bhiwandi District, Thane. Both the petitions have been ordered by this Court, on 30.4.2004. Further, in Contempt Petition No.162 of 2004, dated 18.6.2004, this Court had made the following order: "Pending further orders, third respondent impleaded is directed to reimburse Rupees One Crore, which he had drawn from Syndicate Bank, Sowcarpet Branch, within two weeks from today. That apart, Regional Manager of Canara Bank is directed to refer the matter to the Vigilence Cell to enquire into the entire transaction relating to the disbursement of one crore, in spite of passing of the order, which was communicated by the contempt petitioner by telegram dated 27.2.2003 and as to the lapses and irregularity or illegality committed in this regard and report the matter to this Court within two weeks. Post after two weeks." 32. In contempt appeal No.6 of 2004, filed against the order passed by this Court, on 18.6.2004, in contempt petition No.162 of 2004, the First Bench of this Court had passed an order, on 9.7.2004, stating as follows: "The matter is adjourned by three weeks. Meanwhile, the contempt case shall go on before the learned Single Judge. Paragraph 1 of the order, relating to reimbursement by the appellant, is kept in abeyance for three weeks. In so far as the enquiry by the vigilance cell of the canara Bank is concerned, that shall go on, as ordered by the learned Single Judge. This contempt appeal shall not preclude the learned single Judge from proceeding with the contempt case and even to pass final orders." 33. Subsequently, in the said appeal filed against the order passed by this Court, on 18.6.2004, in Contempt Petition No.162 of 2004, this Court had passed