JUDGMENT This contempt case, which is at the stage of S.R., is filed by the petitioners seeking to punish the respondents under Sections 10 to 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for disobeying the order dated 23.1.2008, passed in CC No.1247 of 2007 and order dated 12.10.2004, passed in WP No.15957 of 1993, by this Court. 2. The Registry has taken an objection "as to how respondent No.4 is proper and necessary party to the contempt case, since he is not a party to the main proceedings. Otherwise leave petition may be filed". 3. The Counsel for the petitioner replied to the objection taken by the Registry, inter alia stating as follows: A contempt case is maintainable against the person who violates the order of this Hon'ble Court. The Revenue Divisional Officer is a subordinate of the District Collector and for all purposes he is to be treated as a party in the writ petition, and the order passed in the writ petition is binding on him. Since deliberate attempts of flouting the order by a subordinate of the District Collector and in view of the allegations attracting criminal contempt, the R.D.O., is added as one of the respondents. There is no requirement of the Contempt Court Rules, 1980 to separately file a petition seeking leave of this Hon'ble Court. Hence, it is requested to number the contempt case and post for admission. 4. Hence, the matter is listed before this Court for orders as to the maintainability of the contempt case in view of the objection raised by the office. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that respondent No.4, namely the Revenue Divisional Officer, Anantapur, by submitting office note to his superiors stating that the case of the petitioners has to be considered in terms of G.O. Ms. No.1307, Revenue (Assignment-I) Department, dated 23.12.1993, for payment of ex gratia only and not compensation, has tried to circumvent the orders of this Court, interfere with the course of justice, and sit in appeal over the judgment of this Court, as such, he is liable to be tried for contempt of the orders of the Court. Therefore, respondent No.4 is a proper and necessary party for adjudication of the issues involved in the contempt case. Therefore, respondent No.4 is a proper and necessary party for adjudication of the issues involved in the contempt case. To demonstrate the contemptuous acts of respondent Nos.2 and 4, submitted that he would file application seeking leave of the Court to disclose the acts of contempt committed by them. 6. He further submitted that even though respondent No.4 is not a party to the original proceedings in the writ petition and the earlier contempt case, but since State is a party to the said proceedings and respondent No.4 being a subordinate official of the State, can be impleaded as a party respondent, and there is no need to file any application seeking leave of the Court to implead him as party-respondent in the contempt case, and in support of this argument, he placed reliance on Rule 7 of the Rules framed by the High Court to regulate the proceedings for contempts of Subordinate Courts and of the High Court. 7. Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and having perused the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and the Rules framed by the High Court, and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the following question arises for consideration: Whether respondent No.4, who is not a party to the original proceedings in the writ petition and in another contempt case, is a proper and necessary party to the present case, and if so, whether he can be impleaded directly without there being any application seeking leave of the Court for his impleadment, filed? 8. To consider the above question, it is appropriate to refer to Rule 7 of the Rules framed by the High Court to regulate the proceedings for contempts of Subordinate Courts and of the High Court, which reads as follows: (1) Every petition under Rule 5(b) and (c) shall contain- (a) The name, description and place of residence of the petitioner or petitioners and of the person charged; (b) The nature and details of the contempt alleged, and such material facts, including the date or dates of commission of the alleged contempt, as may be necessary for the proper determination of the case; (c) The details of the petition previously made by the petitioner on the same facts, if any and the result thereof. (2) Where the petitioner relies upon a document or documents in his possession or power and refers to them in the petition in support thereof, he shall file such document or documents or true copies thereof duly authenticated along with the petition. (3) No Court fee shall be payable on the petition or on any documents filed in the contempt proceedings. 9. From a reading of the above, it would become clear that under clauses (a) to (c) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 7, the petitioner is required to furnish the details of the persons whom they seek to charge for contempt, the nature of contempt alleged, supported by material, if any; and the details of petitions previously made on the same facts, under sub-rule (2), he shall file the copies of documents or true copies thereof duly authenticated, and while sub-rule (3) states that no Court fee is payable on the petition or any documents file in the contempt proceedings. The provisions of Rule 7 though do not speak about seeking leave of the Court for impleading a person in the contempt case, who is not a party to the original proceedings, by filing an application, the fact remains, the Court can, if it comes to its notice/brought to its notice by any person about interference by any person with its orders/interference with the course of and administration of justice/scandalizing the Court, either suo motu take notice of such contemptuous acts of the person and initiate contempt proceedings either by itself or on an application, implead him as party respondent and initiate contempt proceedings. 10. The petitioners initially filed the main writ petition in WP No.l5957 of2003 seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent Nos.1 to 3 in not paying compensation to them in respect of the land admeasuring an extent of Acs.9.56 cents in Sy.Nos.210/1, 211/1 and 212/1 situated in Narayanapuram, Anantapur District, which was acquired by them for the purpose of laying a bypass road, as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently direct respondent Nos.1 to 3 to issue notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, and pay compensation to them as per the prevailing market value. This Court, by order dated 12.10.2004, after hearing the learned Government Pleader for Roads and Buildings for respondent Nos.1 to 3, disposed of the said writ petition with the following directions: The respondents are directed to pass award in accordance with law, in respect of the subject land i.e., Acs.8A6 cents of land comprising in Ac.O.84 cents in Sy.No.21O/1A, Acs4.00 in Sy.No.211/I/C and Acs.3.62 cents in Sy.No.212/lB of Narayanapurarn Village, Anantapur District, for formation of bypass road on National Highway No.7, as specified in the counter-affidavit, and take all necessary steps to pay compensation to the petitioners as per their entitlement. The above exercise of passing of award and payment of compensation shall be completed within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 11. Alleging non-compliance of the above said order by the respondent Nos.1 to 3, the petitioners earlier filed contempt case in C.c. No.1247 of 2007 and this Court, considering the statement made by the learned Government Pleader for Roads and Buildings, on instructions that the respondents in compliance of the orders of the Court, have considered the case of the petitioners and sanctioned an amount of Rs.333.00 lakhs towards compensation payable to them, felt that there was no contempt, much less wilful contempt of the order of the Court, and accordingly, by order dated 23.1.2008, closed the contempt case. 12. The petitioners, now again filed the contempt case, alleging that respondent Nos. I to 3 have not paid the compensation, particularly at the instance of respondent No.4. Admittedly, respondent No.4 is not a party respondent to the main proceedings in WP No.15957 of 1993. In the main proceedings, only respondent Nos. 1 to 3 were arrayed as party-respondents. This Court, by order dated 12.10.2004, while disposing of the said writ petition, gave specific directions only to respondent Nos.1 to 3 to pay compensation to the petitioners. 13. As stated above, the petitioners earlier alleging non-implementation of the orders passed in the writ petition filed contempt case in c.c. No.1247 of 2007, and this Court considering the fact that the respondents have considered the case of the petitioners and sanctioned an amount ofRs.333.00 lakhs towards compensation, vide orders dated 23.1.2008, closed the contempt case, holding that there is no wilful contempt of the orders of this Court. 14. 14. Pursuant to the orders passed by this Court in the above contempt case, it appears that the petitioners have got issued legal notice dated 15.2.2008 to respondent Nos.1 to 3 alleging that they have not implemented the orders of the Court and that it amounted to contempt of the orders. A perusal of the said notice would indicate that "the same was issued at the instance of the petitioners stating that the Revenue Divisional Officer, Anantapur, (who is sought to be impleaded) under a mistaken impression and without reference to the fact that Sy.No.210/lA (0.84 cents), Sy.No.211/IC (Acs.4.00) and Sy.No.212/IB (Acs.3.62 cents) have never been included and notified in Draft Notification and Draft Declaration issued on 17.7.1969", and that respondent Nos.1 and 2 approved the actions of the Revenue Divisional officer, Anantapur it would amount to their abetting criminal contempt, since the Revenue Divisional Officer, Anantapur, has no authority to change the tenor of the judgment of this Court, so as to suggest payment of ex gratia instead of compensation. Except this legal notice, there is no material filed by the petitioners to suggest that the respondents have committed contempt of the orders of this Court. Be that as it may, whether the respondents have committed contempt of the orders of this Court or not has to be determined in the main contempt case. Therefore, it is not necessary to look into the said facts for the present. 15. The limited question is whether the Revenue Divisional Officer, Anantapur, who is not a party to the main proceedings, can be made a party-respondent to the contempt case, as on the basis of the report submitted by him, respondent Nos.1 and 2 are likely to pay ex gratia instead of compensation to the petitioners. Admittedly, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Anantapur, whom the petitioners seek to make a party to the contempt case, though is an officer of the State Government, but the fact remains, he is an officer inferior to respondent Nos.1 and 2. In fact, this Court made specific directions to respondent Nos. 1 and 3 to implement the orders of this Court, and it is for them to implement the same. In fact, this Court made specific directions to respondent Nos. 1 and 3 to implement the orders of this Court, and it is for them to implement the same. If they fail to implement the orders of the Court or if their actions are not in spirit of the order of this Court, certainly they can be proceeded against for contempt of the orders of this Court. Whether mere preparation and submission of official note by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Anantapur, would by itself constitute acts of contempt and interference with the course of justice, has to be adjudicated in the main case, more particularly when the Revenue Divisional Officer, Anantapur, is not a party to the main proceedings. Be that as it may, in Hissar Improvement Trost v. Rukmani Devi, AIR 1990 SC 2033 = 1990 (Supp) SCC 806, the apex Court held that liability to pay compensation is on the Collector and the right of the landowner, who claims to enforce his rights, if any, is only against the Collector. In the instant case, admittedly, the District Collector, Anantapur, is a party to the main proceedings, and in fact, specific directions were given to him for implementing the order, and as such, the right of the petitioners, to enforce his rights, if any, would only be against the District Collector, Anantapur, who already having been arrayed as respondent No.2, both in the main writ petition as well as the contempt case, the interest of the petitioners would well stand protected. However, if still the petitioners feel that the Revenue Divisional Officer, Anantapur, has come in the way of respondent Nos.1 and 2 implementing the orders of this Court, by submitting a false and adverse report, then the remedy of the petitioners, if any, is to file an application seeking leave of the Court to implead him as party-respondent in the contempt proceedings. Though the Contempt Court Rules 1980 do not provide for filing a separate petition seeking leave of the Court to implead a person as party respondent, but the fact remains, the provisions of Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure are made applicable both to writ rules as well as original side rules, wherever necessary, and in exercise of such power whenever a person who is not a party to the original proceedings is sought to be made as a party respondent, then the parties seeking to implead such person, have to file a petition seeking leave of the Court to implead the said party as proper and necessary party to the proceedings. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that since the Revenue Divisional Officer, Anantapur, by submitting a report, had come in the way of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in implementing the orders of the Court, he can be arrayed as a party respondent in the contempt proceedings without filing any application seeking leave of the Court for his impleadment, even though he is not a party to the original proceedings, cannot be accepted. If this contention of the petitioners is to be accepted, then it would amount to impleading any person not party to the original proceedings and to proceed against him for contempt, without verifying the veracity of the allegations made by the initiator of the contempt proceedings. If ultimately in the event, the allegations made in the contempt proceedings, against such third parties are found to be false, then it would amount to permitting the initiators of contempt proceedings to abuse the process of contempt jurisdiction of this Court. If ultimately in the event, the allegations made in the contempt proceedings, against such third parties are found to be false, then it would amount to permitting the initiators of contempt proceedings to abuse the process of contempt jurisdiction of this Court. Therefore, to avoid such situations, when a person who is not a party to the main proceedings is sought to be impleaded, the interest of justice would best be met, if the initiator of the contempt proceedings, files an application to implead such person as party respondent, so that before proceeding against such person for contempt, he is given notice to explain why he should not be made party respondent to the contempt proceedings, and then considering the stand to be taken by him, pass orders either for his impleadment or otherwise, but certainly such third party, who was not party to the original proceedings, cannot be made a party respondent directly in the contempt proceedings, and that too on the basis of mere allegations in the contempt case. 16. Hence, the objection raised by the office is sustained, and the petitioners are at liberty to file application seeking leave of the Court to implead the Revenue Divisional Officer, Anantapur, as party respondent, if they feel that his action of submitting the report amounted to contempt of the orders of this Court.