Madras High Court
A.Jayapandian vs A.Amirtharaj on 9 August, 2024
Cont.P.No.424 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Orders reserved on : 26.07.2024 Orders pronounced on : 09.08.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI
Cont.P.No.424 of 2024
1.A.Jayapandian
2.J.Esther
3.V.Christy
4.A.John Britto .... Petitioners
Vs
A.Amirtharaj .... Respondent
Prayer: Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of
Court Act, to punish the respondent / 1st defendant /Contemnor for wilful
disobedience of the orders of this Court dated 22.10.2003 in O.A.No.405
of 2001 in C.S.No.323 of 2001.
For Petitioners : Mr.Niranjan Rajagopalan
for M/s.G.R.Associates
For Respondent : Mr.S.Packiaraj
ORDER
This Contempt Petition has been filed to punish the respondent under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, for his willful disobedience of the order of this Court dated 22.10.2003 in O.A.No.405 of 2001 in C.S.No.323 of 2001.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/14 Cont.P.No.424 of 2024
2.In and by an order dated 22.10.2003, this Court had passed the following order:
“The applicants have sought for interim injunction restraining the respondents from in any way interfering with the plaintiffs' peaceful possession and occupation of the suit property by putting up any construction structure or superstructure either temporary or permanent over the suit property or proceedings with any construction either temporary or permanent in any manner and / or continuing with such construction either permanent or temporary in any manner in any portion comprised in T.S.NO.15 and 16/1 in Block No.64, more particularly described in the schedule.
2.The applicants are the plaintiffs in the suit and they have prayed for declaratory relief and reliefs of delivery of possession, mandatory injunction and permanent injunction against the defendants, who are respondents in this application. At the instance of the applicants/plaintiffs, two different Advocate Commissioners were appointed by this Court for inspection of property at two different times and both the Commissioners have filed their reports and the respondents have filed their reports and the respondents have filed their objections to both the reports. This Court has directed the respondents to maintain status-quo as on 24.04.2003 until further https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/14 Cont.P.No.424 of 2024 orders.
3.Learned Counsel for the applicants represents that the respondents are not putting up any construction after the order of this court on 24.04.2003.
4.Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by both the counsel, the order of status-quo granted on 24.04.2003 is made absolute.”
3.Thereafter, the suit has been pending on the file of this Court. Mr.Niranjan Rajagopalan, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that despite the specific order passed by this Court being in force, the respondent/Contemnor has put up construction in the form of permanent structures in clear violation of the orders of this Court. He would also submit that the lock and seal demolition notice dated 04.12.2021 was also issued by the CMDA and stop work notice was also issued by the Corporation of Chennai for having undertaken construction without obtaining prior approval from the statutory planning authorities. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondent has violated the specific order passed by this Court. He therefore prays for suitable orders to be passed punishing the respondent/Contemnor.
4.Per contra, S.Packiaraj, learned counsel for the respondent states https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/14 Cont.P.No.424 of 2024 that there is no violation of the order of status quo and the petitioners incorrectly claimed their property to be in T.S.Nos. 15 and 16/1 in Block No.64, Kodambakkam Village. According to the learned counsel for the respondent, the respondent is in enjoyment of TS.No.17 alone and there is no construction put up in TS.No.15 and 16/1. He would also submit that the Revenue Authorities have also corrected the mistake in the survey numbers and based on that, the Housing and Urban Development in and by a letter dated 03.06.2024 in Letter No.6997027/UD 6(3)/2024-2 also ordered to de-seal the premises. The learned counsel for the respondent therefore submits that there is no violation of the interim order granted by this Court.
5.In order to ascertain whether there is any construction put up in TS.No.15 and 16/1, I appointed Mr.Akash, Advocate as the Advocate Commissioner and I directed the Advocate Commissioner to inspect the properties and file a report as to whether the construction has been put up in TS.No.17 or TS.Nos.15 and 16/1.
6.The Advocate Commissioner, after issuance of notice to the learned counsel, attempted to inspect the property along with the Taluk Surveyor. However, it appears that the learned counsel for the respondent https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/14 Cont.P.No.424 of 2024 had expressed his inability to be available on 25.05.2024. The learned counsel for the respondent has also written to the Advocate Commissioner seeking postponement of the inspection to some other date, by letter dated 15.05.2024. The Advocate Commissioner, in and by notice dated 17.05.2024, has stated that he has already fixed the date of inspection and since the Taluk Officials have also been asked to appear, he would not be in a position to postpone the inspection and he requested the learned counsel for the respondent and the respondent to be present on 25.05.2024.
7.The Advocate Commissioner also sent a notice to the respondent which has been returned. The learned counsel thereafter has addressed a communication to the Advocate Commissioner asking him to send a notice to the respondent's correct address at Mettupalayam, West Mambaral, Chennai – 600 033. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that he had intended to prefer an appeal against the order appointing the Advocate Commissioner and because of the summer vacation, no steps could be taken and he sought for postponement of the inspection to 03.06.2024. The Advocate Commissioner thereafter on 21.05.2024, has sent a letter to the respondent to the address mentioned by the learned counsel for the respondent in his communication dated https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/14 Cont.P.No.424 of 2024 21.05.2024. However, the said registered notice has been refused and on 24.05.2024, the Advocate Commissioner has thereafter proceeded to inspect the suit properties with the help of the Taluk Officials and has filed a report, enclosing photographs. He has found that the construction has been put up by the respondent only in TS.No.15 and 16/1 and that an iron gate has also been placed. The said iron gate at that point of time was locked and sealed by the CMDA and hence, the Advocate Commissioner has submitted that he could not enter the property. He has also filed a rough sketch and plan showing the construction put up in S.Nos.15 and 16/1.
8.The learned counsel for the respondent would take serious objections to the Commissioner's conduct as well as the report filed by him. The learned counsel for the respondent would first and foremost submit that the Advocate Commissioner acted in haste and could have awaited till the summer vacation ended and thereafter inspected the property; secondly, he would submit that the sketch provided by the Advocate Commissioner is incorrect since it shows as if S.No.17 is divided into S.No.17/1 and 17/2, which is not factually correct since as per the revenue records, TS.No.17 has not been sub-divided at all; thirdly, he would submit that the notice addressed to the client was https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/14 Cont.P.No.424 of 2024 refused and it is written 600 028 on the face of the cover. He would also submit that when the respondent was residing in Mettupalayam, West Mambalam, Chennai – 600 033, there could not have been Pin code 600 028 written and fourthly, he would refer to the note of the Sub-Inspector of Survey, Mambalam, mentioning the date of inspection as 25.05.2024. He would therefore submit that no reliance can be placed on the Advocate Commissioner's report. The learned counsel for the respondent stood by his contention that no construction has been put up in TS.Nos.15 and 16/1.
9.I have carefully considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either side. I have also gone through the Advocate Commissioner's report. That apart, I have also heard the Advocate Commissioner with regard to the allegations made against him personally by the learned counsel for the respondent. I have also perused the written arguments filed by the respondent.
10.With regard to the wrong date of inspection mentioned by the Sub-Inspector of Survey it is only a typographical error. Admittedly, the Advocate Commissioner has inspected after duly informing the counsel that he is going to inspect the property only on 25.05.2024. Therefore, no significance can be attached to the typographical error in the said https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/14 Cont.P.No.424 of 2024 communication. Secondly, with regard to the returned cover mentioning Chennai – 600 028, I have seen the cover which clearly indicates that the notice was attempted to be served only in West Mambalam (postal seal indicates the date 24.05.2024) and that the postman also noted as refused. The pincode refers to the location of the Advocate Commissioner's Office / residence to which the notice/cover is returned. Therefore, I do not find any error or irregularity apparent on the face of this returned cover to invalidate the notice/communication sent by the Advocate Commissioner to the respondent.
11.In any event, the learned counsel for the respondent was fully aware of the fact that an Advocate Commissioner has been appointed by this Court and thereafter, the Commissioner has also put the learned counsel for the respondent on notice about the proposed inspection. Therefore, the learned counsel for the respondent could have informed the respondent and required him to be present at the site at the time of inspection even if the learned counsel for the respondent was unavailable. The conduct of the respondent is also to be taken note of. He has no reason to refuse the notice sent by the Advocate Commissioner. Even with regard to the proceedings, the order passed by the Housing and Urban Development Department dated 03.06.2024, as rightly pointed out https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8/14 Cont.P.No.424 of 2024 by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the authorities has not given a clean chit to the respondent.
12.Admittedly, they have found that there is no planning permission obtained for the construction and they have only directed to de-seal the building and issuance of fresh locking and sealing and demolition notice, granting three months time to the respondent to regularise the deviations and obtain approval for the existing building put up. The said order by the Housing and Urban Development Department does not in any way help the respondent's defence that construction has not been put in TS.No.15 and 16/1 but only in TS.No.17. In fact that was not the issue before the Housing and Urban Development Department. Therefore, the said order dated 03.06.2024 is of no avail to the respondent.
13.Even otherwise, when this Court had categorically granted an order of status quo making it clear that the respondent shall not put up any further construction without approaching the Court for suitable directions or modification of that order, the respondent ought not to have proceeded to put up even a single brick. The construction put up as seen from the photograph is clearly permanent in nature and the construction is certainly in gross violation and wilful disobedience of the orders of this https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 9/14 Cont.P.No.424 of 2024 Court. The respondent, even now is not apologetic and has only taken a stand that his construction is not in T.S.No.15 and 16/1 but only in TS.No.17. With regard to sub-division of TS.No.17, I enquired with the Advocate Commissioner and he has clarified that there is no sub-division of TS.No.17 but only for the sake of convenience, since the entire TS.No17 is dissected by a road running between, he has for easy reference marked it as 1 and 2. Therefore, even this contention is not available to the respondent. Having found that the construction has been made in wilful disobedience and violation of the orders of this Court, the respondent is clearly guilty of committing contempt of Court.
14. In fact while making the order of status quo absolute on 22.10.2003, this Court has even recorded the representation of the contemnor that he is not putting up any construction after the order of this Court on 24.04.2003. Strangely, the learned counsel for the respondent/contemnor, even raised the plea of limitation in filing the Contempt Application. However, admittedly when the construction was put up recently and notice was issued by the respondent alleging contempt for the on-going construction in violation of the order of this Court only in 2023, I do not see any limitation coming to the rescue of the respondent/contemnor.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 10/14 Cont.P.No.424 of 2024
15. The learned counsel for the respondent would repeatedly contend that the order dated 03.06.2024 directing removal of the lock and seal would establish that the respondent is the owner of T.S.No.17 and not T.S. Nos.15 & 16/1. I have already perused the said order and as already discussed the Authority has not gone into the issue of the survey numbers at all and the order was passed only to enable the respondent to regularise the unlawful construction put up by him without sanction plan. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention of the respondent that the de-sealing of the premises would imply that the respondent is the owner of the T.S.No.17.
16. Unfortunately, the respondent even at the stage of Contempt and the learned Advocate Commissioner finding that the offending construction is only in T.S. No.15 & 16/1 has shown no remorse.
17. For all the above reasons, this Contempt Petition is allowed holding that the respondent/Contemnor has committed contempt of Court for which the respondent/Contemnor is sentenced to Simple Imprisonment for a period of eight (8) weeks and also pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) to the Tamil Nadu Legal https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 11/14 Cont.P.No.424 of 2024 Services Authority, Madras High Court, Chennai within a period of four weeks from today. The Registry is directed to take necessary steps to give effect to this order.
09.08.2024 (1/2) Speaking/Non-speaking order Index : Yes/No ata/rkp Note: Issue order copy on 12.08.2024.
To The Registrar General, Madras High Court, Madras.
P.B.BALAJI,J.
ata/rkp Cont.P.No.424 of 2024 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 12/14 Cont.P.No.424 of 2024 09.08.2024 (1/2) Cont.P.No.424 of 2024 P.B.BALAJI, J.
Subsequent to the order being pronounced, the learned counsel for the respondent made a request for suspending the order to enable the contemnor to prefer an appeal. In view of the above, the order is suspended for a period of two weeks.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 13/14 Cont.P.No.424 of 2024 09.08.2024 (2/2) ata https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 14/14