1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS (CONTEMPT JURISDICTION) THURSDAY, THE 26th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2009 THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVIRAJA PANDIAN AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH CONTEMPT PETITION No.736 of 2009 ************ V.Munia Gounder, S/o.Veerappa Gounder, Kattar, Alichampalayam, Edappadi Village, Salem District. ... Petitioner Vs 1)Chellamuthu, Secretary to Government, The State of Tamil Nadu, Housing and Urban Department, St. George Fort, Chennai 9. 2)Mathivanan, The District Collector, Collector Office Building, Salem, Salem District. 3)Rammohan Rao, Managing Director, The Tamil Nadu Housing Board, No.493, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai 35. 4)Duraisamy, The Executive Engineer cum Administrative Officer, Salem Housing Board, Iyyanthirumaligai, Salem, Salem District. 5)Anbu Lasarasu, The Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Neighborhood Scheme, Salem 8, Salem District. ... Respondents https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 Contempt Petition praying that this Court be pleased to punish the respondents for the deliberate violation of the order of this Hon'ble Court dated 22/01/2008 and made in W.A.No.1592 of 2007. The above Contempt Petition coming on this day before this Court for hearing in the presence of M/s.Ma.P.Thangavel, Advocate for the petitioner herein; and of Mr.R.Thirugnanam, Special Government pleader for the respondents herein; and upon reading the petition and affidavit of V.Munia Gounder, filed herein; and the counter affidavit of T.Subramaniam, filed herein; the Court made the following order:- The contempt petition is filed under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act No.70 of 1971 to punish the respondents for having committed contempt of Court for disobeying the order dated 22.1.2008 made in W.A.No.1592 of 2007 in and by which the Division Bench has passed an order as follows: "....5. The only submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the respondents should be directed to make reference to the Sub-Court, Sankari, under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act in accordance with the directions of the Division Bench dated 31.1.1996. The learned single Judge declined to accept the prayer of the appellant on the sole ground that https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 the appellant had not taken steps to request the authorities to make a reference to the District Collector for enhancement of compensation. We are unable to agree with the view taken by the learned single Judge. The Division Bench vide order dated 31.1,1996 issued a mandamus directing the respondents to refer the award in proceedings in No.2/88-89, dated 13.5.1988 under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to the Sub-Court, Sankari, for fixation of compensation amount with a further direction to the Sub-Court, Sankari, to take the proceedings on file and issue notice to the appellant herein and afford him an opportunity so as to enable the authorities to enhance the market value of the land. The respondents are duty bound to follow the directions of the Division Bench. The said order of the Division Bench has become final and the respondents are obliged to implement the order of the Division Bench by making a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The order of the learned single Judge is set aside and the Writ Appeal is allowed...." 2. In the present contempt petition, it is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had sought for reference https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 to the reference Court in respect of the lands in various survey numbers, which are acquired from the petitioner. But the respondents have referred to the reference Court the lands in respect of only two survey numbers i.e., S.Nos.64/3B and 64/5B, which are the subject matter of award No.2/88-89 dated 13.5.1988. The non-reference of the other survey numbers as directed by this Court in the order dated 22.1.2008 would amount to deliberate disobedience and willful flouting of the Order of the Court and the respondents have thereby rendered themselves to be punished under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act No.70 of 1971. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued very elaborately to sustain the above averment. 4. On the other hand, the respondents filed a counter while unconditionally submitting that the respondents have high regard and great respect on the Honourable High Court and any order passed by the Court would be scrupulously followed in letter and spirit, however, submitted that as per the order dated 22.1.2008, the land comprised in award No.2/88-89 has been referred to the reference Court as directed by this Court in its letter and spirit. Thus the order dated 22.1.2008 has been complied with in letter and spirit. 5. The complaint of the petitioner is that the land which is covered under award NO1/97-98 dated 1.12.1997 should also be referred to. In addition to the land https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5 comprised in award NO.2/87-88. The failure on the part of the respondents in not referring the land, which is the subject matter of award No.1/97-98 is contempt. 6. We heard the argument and perused the order of the Division Bench, which is stated to be flouted by the respondents. 7. On a reading of the Division Bench order, which is stated to be flouted by the respondents, we are not able to concur with the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The entire extract above made would only refer to the land comprised in award No.2/88-89. We are not saying anything about whether the petitioner is entitled to get an order for reference of the land, which is the subject matter of award No.1/97-98. All that we are considering here is whether the action of the respondents would amount to contempt of Court as per the provisions of the Act. In our view, the action of the respondents cannot be construed as act disobeying the order of the Court with malicious and contumacious reason. Therefore, the contempt application has to be dismissed and accordingly the same is dismissed. Witness the Hon'ble Thiru HEMANT LAXMAN GOKHALE, the Chief Justice of High Court at Madras, as aforesaid, this the 26th day of November, 2009. Sd/- DEPUTY REGISTRAR (OS) //Certified to be true copy// Dated at Madras this the day of February, 2010. COURT OFFICER(O.S.) From 25th Day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this format. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6 SMV. CONTEMPT PETITION No.736/2009 THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVIRAJA PANDIAN AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH ORDER DATED : 26/11/2009 FOR APPROVAL :27/01/2010 APPROVED ON :29/01/2010 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/