Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 2721 (MAD)

Murugappa Goundar v. S. Parameswaran

2012-06-29

T.S.SIVAGNANAM

body2012
Judgment :- 1. This petition has been filed alleging willful disobedience of the order and direction issued by this Court dated 03.02.2010 in W.P.No.6603 of 2009. 2. The petitioner herein is the second respondent in the writ petition and the first respondent herein is the writ petitioner. The writ petition was filed for issuance of a writ of Certiorari, to quash the order passed by the second respondent herein dated 16.03.2009, insofar as the lands comprised in survey No.250/1 and 250/2B, Palankarai Village, Avinasi Taluk in patta Nos.77 & 1516. By the said order dated 16.03.2009, the Tashildar, Avinashi, deleted all the names, which were included by earlier orders and restored the original patta. 3. The case of the first respondent/writ petitioner was that he had purchased the said land and applied for change of patta, which application was favourably considered and his name was entered as the pattadar. However, the petitioner herein and one Mr. Arumuga Goundar objected to the same and the second respondent, by order dated 28.09.2007, held that already an appeal is pending before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruppur between the petitioner herein, Arumuga Goundar and T.S. Periyasamy and that request was favourably considered by the second respondent herein, by passing an order dated 27.01.2003. This order came to be questioned by the petitioner herein, which was rejected by order dated 10.06.2003 and he filed appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruppur and the said authority passed an order on 17.01.2004, directing the parties to approach the Civil Court and set aside the order passed by the Tashildar, Avinashi, dated 27.01.2003. The said T.S. Periyasamy being aggrieved by the said order filed revision before the District Revenue Officer, Coimbature, which was dismissed, by order dated 12.05.2006 and he filed a second revision petition before the Commissioner of Land Administration. The writ petitioner got himself impleaded in the second revision petition and the second revisional authority after hearing the first respondent/writ petitioner, petitioner herein, Arumuga Goundar and T.S. Periyasamy, passed an order dated 06.02.2009, confirming the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruppur, dated 17.01.2004, set aside the order passed by the District Revenue Officer and directed the parties to approach the Civil Court. This direction issued by the second revisional authority was implemented by the Tashildar, Avinashi, by passing an order dated 16.03.2009, and restoring the patta in the name of the petitioner herein as it stood originally. This order dated 16.03.2009 was impugned in the writ petition. 4. This Court after taking note of the finding recorded by the second revisional authority (Commissioner of Land Administration) in its order dated 06.02.2009 and also applying the law laid down by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Kuppuswami Nainar vs. District Revenue Officer and Ors, 1995 (1) MLJ 426 , wherein the Hon'ble Division Bench held that the Revenue authorities cannot enquire into disputed questions of title, dismissed the writ petition. However, it was made clear that it was open to the writ petitioner to approach the competent Civil Court to establish his rights. Thereafter, the writ petitioner filed a review application in Review Application No.46 of 2010, which was dismissed by this Court, by order dated 01.03.2011. 5. Thus, in view of the order passed in the writ petition, the order passed by the Tashildar, Avinashi, dated 16.03.2009 was held to be valid as a consequence the entries found in the patta as per the said order should remain as such subject to any decree that may be obtained by the writ petitioner, by availing the liberty granted by this Court. 6. Surprisingly, the third respondent herein passed an order on 18.07.2011, based on a representation made by the first respondent/writ petitioner and included his name in the patta. From a bear perusal of the order, it is evident that no opportunity was granted to the petitioner herein or other persons interested, nor there is any reference to the earlier orders passed by the second revisional authority dated 06.02.2009, order passed by the Tahsildar, Avinashi Taluk, dated 16.03.2009, and straightway the third respondent included the first respondent's name in the patta. After coming to know of the same, the petitioner herein sent a contempt notice on 22.08.2011, calling upon the third respondent to recall the order dated 18.07.2011, and delete the name of the first respondent herein from the patta, failing which stated that contempt proceedings would be initiated. 7. After coming to know of the same, the petitioner herein sent a contempt notice on 22.08.2011, calling upon the third respondent to recall the order dated 18.07.2011, and delete the name of the first respondent herein from the patta, failing which stated that contempt proceedings would be initiated. 7. The respondents 2 and 3 sent a reply notice dated 28.10.2011, stating that the order dated 18.07.2011 was passed taking note of the sale deed dated 29.03.2006 and order in O.S.No.3 of 2006, passed by the District Munsif Court, Avinashi and after being satisfied about the title and possession of Parameswaran, the first respondent herein, the order was passed to include his name in the patta. 8. The petitioner herein has filed this contempt petition, stating that the respondents have willfully disobeyed the order and direction issued by this Court and they are liable to be punished for committing contempt. 9. The third respondent has filed the counter affidavit, taking the same stand taken by him in the reply notice. The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit, by placing reliance on the judgment in O.S.No.3 of 2006, stated that one Palanisamy, who is the purchaser from the first respondent by sale deed dated 18.11.2011, was sought to be dispossessed and the Palanisamy has filed a suit in O.S.No.157 of 2012, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Avinashi and the suit is pending and an interim order is stated to have been granted. Both the respondents 1 & 3 have tendered apology. 10. I have heard Mr. V.S. Sivasundaram, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. K. Govi Ganesan, learned counsel for the first respondent, Mrs. T.P. Savitha, learned Government Advocate for the respondents 2 & 3 and carefully perused the materials placed on record as well as the counter affidavits filed by the first and third respondents. 11. At the out set, it has to be pointed out that the order dated 18.07.2011, passed by the third respondent, has been passed without issuing any notice to any of the parties concerned, this itself would vitiate the order. The allegation in the contempt petition is that the third respondent has willfully disobeyed the order passed by this Court in the writ petition. As noticed above, the first respondent herein filed the writ petition challenging the order passed by the Thasildar, Avinashi, dated 16.03.2009. The allegation in the contempt petition is that the third respondent has willfully disobeyed the order passed by this Court in the writ petition. As noticed above, the first respondent herein filed the writ petition challenging the order passed by the Thasildar, Avinashi, dated 16.03.2009. By the said order, the Thasildar implemented the direction issued by the second revisional authority as contained in the order dated 06.02.2009. While dismissing the writ petition, this Court took note of the observations made by the second revisional authority and for better appreciation, the same is quoted below:- "11) It is clear that both the Revision Petitioners, Respondents and other interested person Thiru Parameswaran have claimed title over the disputed land in S.No.250 based on the various documents pertaining to the years starting from 1921. As concluded by the High Court in various judgments, the question of right over the property should be resolved by a competent civil court and not in a Revenue forum. It is an admitted fact that the Tahsildar has included the name of Thiru. T.S. Periyasamy in the patta on 27.01.2003 without giving opportunity to the other pattadar. Taking into consideration of the Civil dispute, the Revenue Divisional Officer, has rightly directed the Revision Petitioners and Respondents to approach the concerned Civil Court in respect of title over the suit land. 12. For the reasons mentioned supra, the orders of Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruppur passed in his proceedings 737/03/A2, dated 17.01.2004, directing the Revision Petitioners and Respondents to seek remedy from the competent civil court is upheld and consequently the orders of the District Revenue Officer, Coimbatore dated 12.05.2006 is hereby set aside. Simultaneously the orders of the Tahsildar, Avinashi cannot be sustained as he has not given opportunity to the Respondents. Accordingly the Revision Petition is disposed of." 4. In my view the revision authority has rightly come to the conclusion that the question of right over property has to be agitated only before a competent civil court. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Kuppuswami Nainar V. The District Revenue Officer and Others reported in 1995 (1) MLJ 426 has held that the revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to enquire into disputed questions of title and the same is the exclusive jurisdiction of civil Court. 12. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Kuppuswami Nainar V. The District Revenue Officer and Others reported in 1995 (1) MLJ 426 has held that the revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to enquire into disputed questions of title and the same is the exclusive jurisdiction of civil Court. 12. Admittedly, the first respondent herein did not challenge the above referred order, but challenged the consequential order passed by the Thasildar, which is by way of implementation of the order dated 06.02.2009. Therefore, while dismissing the writ petition, this Court observed as follows:- “5. It is to be further noted that the order passed by the second revisional authority dated 06.02.2009 has not been questioned by the petitioner till date. If that be the case, the petitioner cannot now seek to challenge a consequential order, which has been passed pursuant to the order passed by the second revision authority confirming the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruppur dated 07.01.2004 and setting aside the order passed by the District Revenue Officer, Coimbatore dated 12.05.2006 and the earlier order of the first respondent. 6. For the above reason, I do not find any ground to entertain the present writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, it is made clear that it is open to the petitioner to approach the competent civil court to establish his rights and if such procedure is resorted to, the said proceedings shall be considered on its merits and in accordance with law without in any manner being influenced by the observations of this order or in the proceedings of the Revenue authorities. The writ petition is dismissed with this observations. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed. No costs.” 13. The above order had become final and no appeal had been preferred either by the writ petitioner or by the official respondents. As stated, the review petition filed against the above order was dismissed by this Court on 01.03.2011. Therefore, after the dismissal of the writ petition, if the first respondent had made any request for change of patta then the third respondent ought to have taken note of the fact that there is a Civil dispute pending between the parties and ought to have directed the first respondent/writ petitioner to approach the Civil Court in terms of the liberty granted by this Court. The order and direction passed in the writ petition was not only binding on the writ petitioner, but equally binding on the official respondents. However, the third respondent appears to have discarded the orders passed by his superior authorities, order passed by the Thasildar, Avinashi, dated 16.03.2009 and the order passed in the Writ Petition and for reasons best known to him relied upon a suit said to have been filed in the year 2006 and ordered for inclusion of the name of the first respondent herein. When the petitioner herein sent a contempt notice, calling upon the third respondent to recall his order dated 18.07.2011, the third respondent had the audacity to virtually rewrite the terms of the order passed by this Court and stated that they are satisfied with the title and possession of the first respondent herein and therefore, he passed the order dated 18.07.2011. 14. From the facts narrated above, it is evidently clear that the stand taken by the third respondent is irresponsible and reprehensible. At this stage, it has to be noted that the first respondent raised the same contention before the second revisional authority and relied upon a suit in O.S.No.3 of 2006, which was a suit for injunction. After considering the entire case as projected by the first respondent, the second revisional authority passed an order against the first respondent, dated 06.02.2009. This order was not challenged by the first respondent nor the first respondent had filed any suit in terms of the liberty granted. From the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent, it is seen that he has sold about 1 acre of land to one Mr. Palanisamy by sale deed dated 18.11.2011. This transaction is admittedly, after the dismissal of the writ petition on 03.02.2010 and the dismissal of the review petition on 01.03.2011. Thus, it appears that this sale is a shame transaction probably with a intention to complicate the issues. 15. Therefore, this Court is of the firm view that order passed by the third respondent dated 18.07.2011, was wholly without jurisdiction and a blatant violation of the order passed by this Court in the writ petition. 16. Thus, it appears that this sale is a shame transaction probably with a intention to complicate the issues. 15. Therefore, this Court is of the firm view that order passed by the third respondent dated 18.07.2011, was wholly without jurisdiction and a blatant violation of the order passed by this Court in the writ petition. 16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Supreme Court Bar Assocation vs. Union of India, [ (1998) 4 SCC 409 ], was dealing with a petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, wherein a declaration was sought for, to declare that the Disciplinary Committees of the Bar Councils set up under the Advocates Act, alone have exclusive jurisdiction to inquire and suspend or debar an advocate from practising law and to further declare that the Supreme Court of India or any High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction has no power or authority in that regard. While considering the various legal issues raised in the said petition, the Hon'ble Supreme Court after analyzing the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act summarised the recognised and accepted punishments for civil or criminal contempt of Court in English law, which have been followed and accepted by the courts in this country and incorporated in the Indian law and their Lordship's held as follows:- “33. Thus, the recognised and accepted punishments for civil or criminal contempt of court in English law, which have been followed and accepted by the courts in this country and incorporated in the Indian law insofar as, civil contempt, is concerned are: (i) sequestration of assets; (ii) fine; (iii)committal to prison. 34. The object of punishment being both curative and corrective, these coercions are meant to assist an individual complainant to enforce his remedy and there is also an element of public policy for punishing civil contempt, since the administration of justice would be undermined if the order of any court of law is to be disregarded with impunity. Under some circumstances, compliance of the order may be secured without resort to coercion, through the contempt power. For example, disobedience of an order to pay a sum of money may be effectively countered by attaching the earnings of the contemner. Under some circumstances, compliance of the order may be secured without resort to coercion, through the contempt power. For example, disobedience of an order to pay a sum of money may be effectively countered by attaching the earnings of the contemner. In the same manner, committing the person of the defaulter to prison for failure to comply with an order of specific performance of conveyance of property, may be met also by the court directing that the conveyance be completed by an appointed person. Disobedience of an undertaking may in the like manner be enforced through process other than committal to prison as for example where the breach of undertaking is to deliver possession of property in a landlord-tenant dispute. Apart from punishing the contemner, the court to maintain the majesty of law may direct the police force to be utilised for recovery of possession and burden the contemner with costs, exemplary or otherwise.” 17. In Chhotu Ram vs. Urvashi Gulati, [ (2001) 7 SCC 530 ], while examining the objection of introduction of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, it has been held that it is for the purpose of securing a feeling of confidence of the people in general and for due and proper administration of justice in the country. 18. In Anil Kumar Shahi (2) vs. Prof. Ram Sevak Yadav and Others, [ (2008) 4 SCC 115 ], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that under the Contempt Courts Act, 1971 and under Article 129 of the Constitution of India, if it is alleged that a person has willfully violated its order, the Court can invoke its jurisdiction under the Act, whether the allegation is true or not and it is found to be true punish the offenders for having committed 'civil contempt' and if need be can pass consequential orders for enforcement of execution of the order, as the case may be for violation of which, the proceeding for contempt was initiated. 19. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned judgments, the object of punishment in a contempt proceedings is both curative and corrective. 20. 19. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned judgments, the object of punishment in a contempt proceedings is both curative and corrective. 20. Therefore, by applying the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the definite view that necessary orders should be passed so that the gross and blatant violation committed by the third respondent is quashed and the position in the Revenue records as it stood, pursuant to the order dated 16.03.2009, and the inclusion of the name of the first respondent herein in the patta should stand deleted and the entries in the revenue record shall be maintained as per the order dated 16.03.2009 passed by the Thasildar, Avinashi, which is an implementation of the order passed by the Commissioner of Land Administration, dated 06.02.2009. Though the respondents 1 & 3 are guilty of contempt, this Court by taking note of the unconditional apology tendered by these respondents in their counter affidavits, accept the same. However, with a view to bring to the notice of the superior authority about the manner in which the third respondent has conducted himself, the copy of the order passed by this Court in this contempt petition shall be communicated by the Registry to the principal Secretary and Commissioner of Land Administration, Chepauk, Chennai – 5, for initiating appropriate action against the third respondent. 21. In the result, the contempt petition is allowed and the order passed by the third respondent dated 18.07.2011, is quashed. The unconditional apology tendered by the respondents 1 & 3, is accepted, however, the copy of the order passed by this Court in this contempt petition shall be communicated by the Registry to the Principal Secretary and Commissioner of Land Administration, Chepauk, Chennai – 5, for initiating appropriate action against the third respondent. Consequently, connected Sub-Application No.9 of 2012 is closed.