Madras High Court
The Special Tahsildar No. Iii, Land ... vs V. Rangasamy Reddiar on 13 January, 1988
Equivalent citations: (1988)1MLJ317, AIR 1988 MADRAS 162, (1988) 101 MADLW 149 (1988) 2 CURCC 89, (1988) 2 CURCC 89
JUDGMENT Srinivasan, J.
1. We passed an order in C.M.P. Nos. 2977 to 2979 of 1987 on 7th January, 1988, making the interim stay absolute on certain conditions with regard to the deposit of the amount awarded as compensation. It was found by us that the order against which the appeals have been filed was an Ad Interm Ex Parte order made by a learned single Judge of this Court, in which he directed the appellant to deposit one-fourth of the compensation awared within eight weeks from the date of the order. The learned Judge had also stayed further proceedings pending further orders on the petition. It is against the said ad interim order, these appeals have been filed.
2. We are very much concerned to note a disturbing tendency that is fast developing now-a-days. In the recent past, we have come across several matters in which appeals are filed against Ad Interim Ex Parte orders without resorting to the normal course of approaching the court which passed such orders and seeking appropriate further orders in spite of the law having been clearly laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in Abdul Shukoor v. Umachander (1976)89 L.W. 330 : A.I.R. 1976 Mad. 350. No doubt, that case arose out of an order emanating from a Subordinate Court. The ratio of the decision will apply with more force to an order passed by a learned single Judge of this Court. Moreover the ad interim orders are not judgments within the meaning of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.
3. What concerns us most is that the Government and statutory Corporations very often indulge in by-passing the only lawful course and adopting a course expressly dis-approved by this Court. We hold that the appeals ought to have been filed in this case. The only course open to the Government was to approach she Court in charge of civil miscellaneous petitions and pray for the passing of appropriate final orders in the civil miscellaneous petition. We hope that there will be no recurrence of similar instances in future. We make it clear that If we come across any such appeals in future, we will be constrained not only to dismiss such appeals, but also penalise the parties concerned with orders of heavy costs.
4. It is now brought to our notice that after the passing of the ad interim order under appeal, the civil miscellaneous petitions came up for final disposal before a learned single Judge, and he had passed an order on 28.1.1987 making the interim stay absolute on condition of the Government depositing the balance of the compensation amount awarded by the Court, within a particular time. Thus, the final order of the Court in the civil miscellaneous petition was to direct the Government to deposit the entire compensation and to permit the respondent to withdraw one-fourth of the same. That order has become final, as no appeal has been filed against the same. If the Government has not deposited the compensation amount as directed in the order dated 28.1.1987 the stay granted will stand automatically vacated.
5. Under these circumstances, these Letters Patent appeals are dismissed. The order of stay made in C.M.P. No. 2977 to 1987 is vacated. There will be no order as to costs.