R.REGUPATHIContempt Appeal Nos.3 and 4 of 20061. R.Anand Kumar Sub Collector Hosur v. C.Manjula

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 15.11.2007CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN ANDTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.REGUPATHIContempt Appeal Nos.3 and 4 of 20061. R.Anand Kumar Sub Collector Hosur Taluk Krishnagiri District.2. K.Ponnuswami Tahsildar Hosur Taluk Krishnagiri District... Appellants/Respondentsin both AppealsVsC.Manjula.. Respondent/Petitionerin Cont.A.3/2006 V.Saradha.. Respondent/Petitionerin Cont.A.4/2006 PRAYER: Against the orders of the learned Single Judge dated12.4.2006 and 30.8.2006 made in Contempt Petition Nos.1170 of 2005and 22 of 2006 respectively.For Appellants:Mr.P.S.RamanAdditional Advocate Generalassisted by Mrs. Bhavani Subbarayan A.G.P.For Respondent:Mr.T.Ponram Kumarin Cont.A.3/2006For Respondent:Mr.S.Conscious Ilangoin Cont.A.4/2006 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ JUDGMENT(Judgment delivered by P.D.DINAKARAN,J.)These contempt appeals have a common matrix. They aredirected against the orders of the learned Single Judge dated12.4.2006 and 30.8.2006 made in Contempt Petition Nos.1170 of 2005and 22 of 2006, arising out of independent orders even dated16.12.2005 made in W.P.M.P.No.43094 of 2005 in W.P.No.40183 of 2005and W.P.M.P.No.43205 of 2005 in W.P.No.40291 of 2005 respectively.2. A brief factual background giving rise to these appeals isas follows:2.1.The respondent in Contempt Appeal No.3 of 2006 preferredW.P.No.40183 of 2005 for issue of a writ of Mandamus to forbear therespondents therein, their men, servants or agents from in anymanner interfering with her possession and enjoyment or demolishingthe constructions in Door No.37/17A, Plot No.91, T.S.No.11/2A2,Kamaraj Colony 2nd Cross, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri.2.2. The respondent in Contempt Appeal No.4 of 2006 preferredW.P.No.40291 of 2005 for issue of a writ of Mandamus to forbear therespondent and his subordinates from in any way interfering withher peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property bearingNo.19A/1, Kamaraj Colony 2nd Cross, Hosur, Krishnagiri Districtcomprised in Survey No.11/2A/2 and Hosur Municipality Property TaxAsssessment No.17165 except by strictly following the due processof law.2.3. Pending the above writ petitions, the respondents inthese Contempt Appeals preferred W.P.M.P.Nos.43094 and 43205 of2005 in W.P.Nos.40183 and 40291 of 2005 respectively seekinginterim injunction pending the writ petitions.2.4. The learned Single Judge by independent orders even dated16.12.2005 made in W.P.M.P.No.43094 of 2005 in W.P.No.40183 of 2005and W.P.M.P.No.43205 of 2005 in W.P.No.40291 of 2005 respectivelygranted interim injunction as prayed for and ordered notice.2.5. It is the common case of the respondents in the ContemptAppeals that the said independent orders even dated 16.12.2005 madein W.P.M.P.No.43094 of 2005 in W.P.No.40183 of 2005 andW.P.M.P.No.43205 of 2005 in W.P.No.40291 of 2005 respectively werecommunicated to the appellants in the contempt appeals, but, inspite of the same, the impugned buildings were demolished on19.12.2005. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2.6. Complaining willful disobedience of the orders evendated 16.12.2005 made in W.P.M.P.No.43094 of 2005 in W.P.No.40183of 2005 and W.P.M.P.No.43205 of 2005 in W.P.No.40291 of 2005, therespondents in these contempt appeals preferred Contempt PetitionNos.1170 of 2005 and 22 of 2006 respectively.2.7. When the contempt petitions were taken up for hearing bythe learned Single Judge, the contempt appellantsherein/contemners, at the outset, tendered unconditional apologyand further explained that the demolitions of the constructions putup by the respondents herein were not deliberate. It was explainedthat while injunction was granted by independent orders even dated16.12.2005 made in W.P.M.P.No.43094 of 2005 in W.P.No.40183 of 2005and W.P.M.P.No.43205 of 2005 in W.P.No.40291 of 2005 restrainingthe respondents from demolishing the impugned buildings constructedin Survey Nos.11/2A2, Kamaraj Colony 2nd Cross, Hosur Taluk,Krishnagiri, the buildings demolished by the contempt appellantsare situated in Survey Nos.11/2A1, Kamaraj Colony 2nd Cross, HosurTaluk, Krishnagiri.2.8. However, the learned Single Judge, by order dated12.4.2006 made in Contempt Petition No.1170 of 2005, held that theappellants herein are guilty of civil contempt and sentenced themto undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month each andto pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each, and in default of payment, toundergo simple imprisonment for a further period of two weeks each;and by order dated 30.8.2006 made in Contempt Petition No.22 of2006, held that the first appellant herein is guilty of civilcontempt and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for aperiod of one month and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, and in defaultof payment, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period oftwo weeks. Hence, these contempt appeals.3. Heard Mr.P.S.Raman, learned Additional Advocate Generalappearing for the contempt appellants, Mr.T.Ponram Kumar, learnedcounsel appearing for the respondent in Contempt Appeal No.3 of2006 and Mr.S.Conscious Ilango, learned counsel appearing for therespondent in Contempt Appeal No.4 of 2006. All the learnedcounsel reiterated their submissions made before the learned SingleJudge.4. At the threshold, we would like to extract the prayers inW.P.M.P.No.43094 of 2005 in W.P.No.40183 of 2005 andW.P.M.P.No.43205 of 2005 in W.P.No.40291 of 2005:"Prayer in W.P.M.P.No.43094 of 2005 in W.P.No.40183of 2005:To grant interim injunction restraining therespondents, their men, servants or agents from in any https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ manner interfering with my possession and enjoyment ordemolishing the constructions in 37/17A, Plot No.91,T.S.No.11/2A2, Kamaraj Colony 2nd Cross, Hosur Taluk,Krishnagiri pending disposal of W.P.No.40183 of 2005Prayer in W.P.M.P.No.43205 of 2005 in W.P.No.40291 of2005:To pass an order of interim injunction restraining therespondent and his subordinates from in any wayinterfering with the petitioner's peaceful possessionand enjoyment of the property bearing No.19A/1,Kamaraj Colony 2nd Cross, Hosur, Krishnagiri Districtcomprised in Survey No.11/2A/2 and Hosur MunicipalityProperty Tax Asssessment No.17165 pending disposal ofW.P.No.40291 of 2005."5. The respondents in these contempt appeals have chosen tomention the details of property as under: (i) Door No. 37/17A,Plot No.91, T.S.No.11/2A2, Kamaraj Colony 2nd Cross, Hosur Taluk,Krishnagiri, and (ii) Door No.19A/1, Survey No.11/2A/2, KamarajColony 2nd Cross, Hosur, Krishnagiri District, respectively, andthis Court granted interim injunction as prayed for by independentorders even dated 16.12.2005 made in W.P.M.P.No.43094 of 2005 inW.P.No.40183 of 2005 and W.P.M.P.No.43205 of 2005 in W.P.No.40291of 2005 respectively.6. The explanation offered by the contempt appellants/contemners was that the interim injunction granted by independentorders even dated 16.12.2005 made in W.P.M.P.No.43094 of 2005 inW.P.No.40183 of 2005 and W.P.M.P.No.43205 of 2005 in W.P.No.40291of 2005 respectively, restrains them from demolishing the buildingsconstructed in Survey No.11/2A2 and not beyond Survey No.11/2A2.According to the contempt appellants/contemners, portions of thetwo buildings demolished fall outside Survey No.11/2A2, and, infact, fall in Survey No.11/2A1, as per the field map sketch.7. We have perused the field map sketch relating to bothSurvey Nos.11/2A1 and 11/2A2. When there is an apparent mistake ofidentity of the demolished portions of the buildings, it is asettled law that identity of the land as recorded in the publicrecords maintained by the Revenue authorities would alone prevail.This aspect of the explanation offered by the contempt appellantswas not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge in properperspective.8. That apart, when the identity of the demolished portions ofthe buildings is doubted, the contempt appellants/ contemners orthe respondents herein could have sought for a clarification as tothe above discrepancy, but none among them chose to do so. On the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ other hand, in addition to the explanation offered by the contemptappellants/contemners, they also submitted unconditional apologythat they never intended to disobey the orders of this Court. Atthis juncture, Mr.P.S.Raman, learned Additional Advocate Generalappearing for the contempt appellants/contemners adds that had therespondents herein mentioned both the Survey Nos.11/2A1 and 11/2A2in the prayer sought for in the writ petitions, the contemptappellants would not have hastened to proceed with the demolitionof the buildings.9. Both the learned counsel for the respondents herein, atthis point of time, seek liberty to work out their rights in themanner known to law to identify the correct survey numbers of therespective buildings. In our considered opinion, the same could bedone only in appropriate civil proceedings, but not in proceedingsunder Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as the issuerequires evidence, both oral and documentary. However, we do notpropose to render any finding in this regard.10. On the question of willful disobedience of the independentorders even dated 16.12.2005 made in W.P.M.P.No.43094 of 2005 inW.P.No.40183 of 2005 and W.P.M.P.No.43205 of 2005 in W.P.No.40291of 2005 respectively, we are convinced with the explanation offeredby the contempt appellants, particularly in view of the mistake ofidentity of the survey numbers in which the buildings wereconstructed, viz., in S.No.11/2A1 or S.No.11/2A2, and theunconditional apology tendered by them. We, therefore, find nojustification in imposing the punishment as ordered by the learnedSingle Judge by orders dated 12.4.2006 and 30.8.2006 made inContempt Petition Nos.1170 of 2005 and 22 of 2006 respectively.Resultantly, we set aside the orders of the learned SingleJudge dated 12.4.2006 and 30.8.2006 made in Contempt PetitionNos.1170 of 2005 and 22 of 2006 respectively, and allow thesecontempt appeals, of course, with an observation that therespondents in these appeals are at liberty to work out theirrights in the writ petitions. No costs. Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.sasi https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To1. The Sub Assistant RegistrarOriginal Side, High Court, Madras.2. The Section Officer,Contempt Section,Madras-104.1 cc to M/s. R. Vijayakhumar, Advocate, Sr. 678621 cc to M/s. A.L. Gandhimathi, Advocate, Sr. 67919Contempt Appeal Nos.3 and 4 of 2006AD (CO)kk 26/11