1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 11.01.2013 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU Contempt Petition No.1171 of 2008 R.Sathyavel .. Petitioner Vs. 1.Kanniammal, President, Machanur Village Panchayat, Machanur Village & Post, Katpadi Taluk, Vellore District. 2.P.Kuppan Block Development Officer, K.V.Kuppam Panchayat Union, K.V.Kuppam, Katpadi Taluk, Vellore District. .. Respondents This contempt petition is preferred under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act to punish the respondents for disobeying the order passed by this court in W.P.No.12960 of 2007, dated 3.9.2007 under Contempt of Court Act. For Petitioner : Mr.N.Sampath For Respondents : Mr.R.Murali for R-1 Mr.T.Seenivasan for R-2 ORDER This contempt petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to punish the respondents for willfully disobeying the order passed by this court in W.P.No.12960 of 2007 dated 3.9.2007. By the aforesaid order, this court held as follows : "Petitioner has filed this writ petition, seeking for a writ of mandamus to forbear the respondents, their men, agents and servants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner's house in S.No.48/1, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 Machanur Village, Katpadi Taluk, Vellore District and consequently forbear the respondents from evicting the petitioner from S.No.48/1, Machanur Village, Katpadi Taluk, Vellore District except under due process of law. 2.The issue involved in the case on hand was already resolved by this Court in W.P.No.12797 of 2000 filed by the petitioner which was disposed by order dated 11.10.2001. The petitioner has also filed W.P.No.39894 of 2002 which was also dismissed and the order of the learned single Judge dated 30.10.2002 was challenged by the petitioner himself in W.A.No.3756 of 2002. The writ appeal was also dismissed with certain directions on 13.12.2002. The relevant portion of the said order reads as follows : "2.It is the complaint of the learned counsel for the appellant that there are as many as 23 persons, who are also residing in the said land by erecting huts, and while they are not disturbed, the appellant alone is sought to be disturbed. If such a legal permission has been granted by any revenue authority, permitting anybody to put up huts on the land meant for the activities of pottery, then the concerned revenue official shall take action to remove all those persons from the said huts by invoking appropriate proceedings under the Land Encroachment Act." 3.In view of the fact that the First Bench of this Court directed the revenue officials, who, during the relevant period, attempted to disturb the petitioner's possession to invoke the mandatory provisions of Land Encroachment Act for eviction, the said judgment can be made applicable to the respondents herein as well. Hence, the respondents are directed not to disturb the possession of the petitioner without due process of law viz., without following the provisions of Land Encroachment Act." Alleging that the said order has been disobeyed, the contempt came to be filed. 2.When the matter came up on 08.04.2010, it was admitted and statutory notice was issued. A counter affidavit, dated Nil (July, 2010) was filed by the first respondent. The second https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 respondent also filed a counter affidavit, dated 27.7.2009. Subsequently, on 27.07.2011, the learned Master was directed to record evidence of parties. The petitioner examined himself as P.W.1 on 26.8.2011, 01.12.2011 and 09.12.2011 and Exs.P.1 to P.3 were marked. He was cross examined by the counsel for the respondents. But the respondents thereafter did not get into the witness box for giving any rebutting evidence. Heard the arguments of Mr.N.Sampath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.R.Murali and Mr.T.Seenivasan, learned counsel for the respondents. 3.It is seen from the records that the petitioner originally filed W.P.No.12797 of 2000 seeking to restrain the respondents from forcibly evicting the petitioner from the work of baking of MUD pots and residence in S.No.48/1 in Machanur village, Katpadi Taluk. It was found that the petitioner had encroached the said land and put up the construction. In the counter affidavit filed in that writ petition, it was stated that the petitioner will be evicted in accordance with law. The writ petition was dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred another writ petition in W.P.No.39894 of 2002 against the Tahsildar, Katpadi, seeking to challenge the notice dated 14.10.2002, wherein and by which he was given notice under the Land Encroachment Act. This Court held that the petitioner was only asked to vacate the house and his right to remove clay from the land had not been interfered with. Hence the writ petition was dismissed. The petitioner preferred a writ appeal in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 W.A.No.3756 of 2002 before the division bench. The division bench, by an order dated 13.12.2002 had dismissed the writ appeal and in paragraph 2, it was stated as follows : "2.It is the complaint of the learned counsel for the appellant that there are as many as 23 persons, who are also residing in the said land by erecting huts, and while they are not disturbed, the appellant alone is sought to be disturbed. If such a legal permission has been granted by any revenue authority, permitting anybody to put up huts on the land meant for the activities of pottery, then the concerned revenue official shall take action to remove all those persons from the said huts by invoking appropriate proceedings under the Land Encroachment Act." 4.In the meanwhile, since the land was found to be in Kuttai Poramboke, which is a water body, the panchayat under the "Anna Marumalarchi Scheme" had decided to carry on removal of silt in the land at the cost of Rs.3 lakhs and a tender was issued. It was at this stage, the petitioner filed the third writ petition in W.P.No.12960 of 2007 and an order dated 3.9.2007 was passed. 5.It was contended by the respondents that the land was admittedly a Kuttai Poramboke. The petitioner has lost his previous cases in challenging the eviction notice. Therefore, no indulgence should be shown. In the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent, it was stated that the renovation work of the land was completed on 10.6.2008 and the second respondent had requested the Contractor not to disturb the residence of the petitioner. The desilting operation was done without disturbing the possession of the petitioner. 6.The second respondent, in his counter affidavit, had https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5 stated that the desilting operation was carried on the land and necessary direction was given to the contractor to desilt the pond without disturbing the possession of the petitioner. 7.However, the petitioner in his proof affidavit had stated that the first respondent and her son Muniaraj @ Sampath along with their men had violated the order and removed the thatched shed and demolished the brick walls. This can be evidenced from Ex.P.1 (series) photographs. In the cross examination of the petitioner as P.W.1, a suggestion was also put that the first respondent was not present. But that was also denied. In the light of the evidence given by the petitioner, it is seen that the respondents had voluntarily breached the order passed by this court. Though they attempted to state that they have given necessary instructions to the contractor, but on the other hand Ex.P.1 (series) clearly showed that the house has been demolished. Therefore, the respondents will have to be held guilty of willful disobedience of the order passed by this court. 8.Mr.R.Murali, learned counsel for the first respondent relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Ashok Paper Kamgar Union Vs. Dharam Godha and others reported in (2003) 11 SCC 1 for contending that the order should be of such a nature as to be capable of execution in ordinary circumstances. For constituting the willful disobedience in terms of Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, in paragraph 17, the Supreme Court had observed as follows : https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6 "17.Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act defines "civil contempt" and it means wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or wilful breach of undertaking given to a court. "Wilful" means an act or omission which is done voluntarily and intentionally and with the specific intent to do something the law forbids or with the specific intent to fail to do something the law requires to be done, that is to say, with bad purpose either to disobey or to disregard the law. It signifies a deliberate action done with evil intent or with a bad motive or purpose. Therefore, in order to constitute contempt the order of the court must be of such a nature which is capable of execution by the person charged in normal circumstances. It should not require any extraordinary effort nor should be dependent, either wholly or in part, upon any act or omission of a third party for its compliance. This has to be judged having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case....." 9.But in the present case, the respondents cannot escape by stating that they have given necessary direction to the contractor not to demolish the house which is not proved by letting in any evidence. Strangely, the respondents never got into the witness box for denying the statement made by the petitioner as P.W.1. Even a suggestion put in the cross examination was denied by the petitioner. When once the respondents did not get into the box and the suggestion put by them also denied by P.W.1, the contention that they were not aware of the demolition cannot be accepted. Hence this court is of the opinion that the respondents are guilty of violating the order passed by this court and have committed a clear contempt in terms of Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act. It was further submitted by Mr.R.Murali, learned counsel for the first respondent that the first respondent is 70 years old and is no https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 7 longer the employee of the panchayat. The second petitioner has already retired from service. 10.Taking note of the said circumstances, this court is not inclined to order any imprisonment of the respondents in terms of Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, but it is inclined to impose penalty. Therefore, it is hereby directed that both respondents should pay Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) each as fine for having committed contempt of court. The said fine amount should be deposited within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Accordingly, the contempt petition is partly allowed. vvk SD/- DEPUTY REGISTRAR (OS) //Certified to be true copy// Dated at Madras this the day of 2013. COURT OFFICER (O.S.) From 25th Day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the orders/judgments/Decrees in this format. KS(CO)01/02/2013 One CC to MR.N.Sampath, Advocate, SR.556/13 To 1.President, Machanur Village Panchayat, Machanur Village & Post, Katpadi Taluk, Vellore District. 2.Block Development Officer, K.V.Kuppam Panchayat Union, K.V.Kuppam, Katpadi Taluk, Vellore District. 3.The Sub Assistant Registrar, Accounts Section High Court, Madras. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/