Madras High Court
N.Meenakshi vs The Tahsildar on 18 November, 2014
Author: M.Venugopal
Bench: M.Venugopal
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 18.11.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL CONT P(MD)No.394 of 2013 in W.P.(MD)No.499 of 2011 N.Meenakshi .. Petitioner / Petitioner Vs. 1.The Tahsildar, Srivaikundam Taluk, Srivaikundam, Tuticorin District. 2.The Sub-Registrar, Eral Sub-Registrar Office, Eral, Srivaikundam Taluk, Tuticorin District. 3.Mr.Nayinar Pillai, Sherestadar, Collectorate, Tuticorin, Tuticorin District. 4.Mr.Madasamy, Tahsildar (Election), District Collectorate, Tuticorin. 5.Mr.V.Selvakumar The Tahsildar, Srivaikundam Taluk, Srivaikundam, Tuticorin District. 6. Mr.I.Sankaran, Sub-Registrar, Eral Sub Registrar Office, Eral, Srivaikundam Taluk, Tuticorin District. .. Contemnors / Respondents PRAYER Contempt Petition is filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, to punish the Respondents 3 to 6 for Contempt of Court for their wilful and deliberate disobedience of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.499 of 2011, dated 08.11.2011. !For Petitioner : Mr.S.S.Sundar ^For Respondents : Mr.M.Raja Rajan Govt. Advocate Orders Reserved on: 10.11.2014 :ORDER
The Petitioner has preferred the instant Contempt Petition before this Court, praying for passing of an order by this Court to punish the Respondents 3 to 6, for Contempt of Court, for their wilful and deliberate disobedience of the Order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.499 of 2011, dated 08.11.2011.
2. According to the Petitioner, an extent of 80 cents in Survey No.45/1A1A1A out of total extent of 1.14.00 Hectares (2.82 Acres) in Korkai Village, belongs to her by means of a registered Settlement Deed, executed by her Husband on 09.06.1999. Originally, the property belonged to the family of her husband and an extent of 80 cents was allotted to the share of her husband, by way of a oral partition. Though an unregistered deed was executed evidencing the oral partition, dispute arose among the members of the family regarding boundaries, as there was no partition by metes and bounds. Later, a Suit for partition in O.S.No.63 of 2008, on the file of Sub Court, Tuticorin was filed. However, parties to the partition Suit viz., the members of the family of her husband entered into a compromise in tune with the earlier oral partition and a final decree was passed in terms of compromise memo. As per the final decree, the parties acknowledged the right, title and interest of her husband over an extent of 80 cents in Survey No.1A1A1A and the Settlement Deed was executed by her husband in her favour. In the partition Suit, the property in Survey No.45/1A1A1A in Korkai Village was described as Item No.26 of I Schedule. The remaining extent in the same survey number belongs to the family was allotted to the other brothers.
3. One of the brothers of the Petitioner's husband, Ramesh by name, had executed a registered sale agreement in favour of her husband, in respect of some portion of the property in the same survey number allotted to him in the partition Suit. The entire extent in Survey No.45/1A1A1A was registered in the name of all the members of the family and persons claiming under them by virtue of alienation. Joint Patta was issued in Patta No.1436.
4. Pursuant to the passing of final decree in O.S.No.63 of 2008, dated 05.09.2008, the Petitioner's husband's brother had encumbered portions of the property allotted to them in S.No..45/1A1A1A, Korkai Village. When the Petitioner applied for separate Patta and sub division of the survey number, according to their entitlement, the Tahsildar, without considering the final decree, refused to go for sub division, on the ground that sub division of the property is not possible on the basis of the unregistered Partition Deed. This order was passed on 30.09.2010. Later, she submitted another application requesting the Tahsildar to issue a separate patta in her favour in respect of 80 cents, after sub division of Survey No.45/1A1A1A. This application was submitted on 07.10.2010 along with all documents.
5. Further, one Rubini @ Baby, wife of one of the brothers of her husband, by name Vijayan, had also applied for separate patta and for sub division. It appears that the said Vijayan had also executed a settlement deed in favour of his wife in respect of an extent of 80 cents. Pursuant to the application for sub division and for issuance of separate patta, the Tahsildar issued notice to the Petitioner, asking her to appear on 31.10.2010 along with all documents showing her right, title and interest. After ascertaining from the records about the right of parties, the Tahsildar along with Revenue Officials started measuring the property and fixed survey stones to effect sub division on ground. After completing the physical work, to her shock and surprise, the Tahsildar passed an order on 08.11.2010 stating that it is not possible for sub division and separate patta, in view of the objections raised by some of the joint holders.
6. It is the stand of the Petitioner that some of the brothers of her husband are also making attempts to alienate the property on the basis of the joint patta, which stands in the name of all the persons. In fact, some of the brothers of her husband, who were allotted only lesser extent in Survey No.45/1A1A1A, are trying to sell more extent on the basis of joint patta. This will cause serious prejudice to the interest of other sharers. The refusal to effect sub division and to issue separate patta is only to create some cloud over the title of sharers on the basis of the final decree. Hence, the Petitioner has no other alternative except to file a Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.499 of 2011, for issuing a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records in connection with the impugned order of the 1st Respondent vide his proceedings Ref.x/K.Mh;.o. eph;.4963-2010, dated 08.11.2010, refusing to effect sub division, quash the same and consequently, direct the Sub Registrar, Eral, Tuticorin District, not to register any instrument of conveyance or encumbrance in respect of property in S.No.45/1A1A1A, situated at Korkai Village, Srivaikundam Taluk, Tuticorin District etc., In the said Writ Petition, the 1st Respondent was the Tahsildar, Tuticorin and the 2nd Respondent was the Sub Registrar, Eral, Tuticorin District. The Respondents 3 and 4 were brothers and the 5th Respondent was the wife of the 4th Respondent.
7. This Court, on 08.11.2011, after analysing the provisions under the Tamil Nadu Patta Passbook Act, passed the following orders:-
"Under the said circumstances, the impugned order is stand set aside and the matter is remitted to the first respondent for making a decision in accordance with Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, after due notice to the objectors if any. This exercise shall be carried out within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and till such time, the second respondent shall be restrained from the registration of any document in respect of S.No.45/1A1A1A situated at Korkai Village, Srivaikundam Taluk The Writ Petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above. In view of the above, the miscellaneous petition is dismissed."
8. The prime submission of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that this Court was pleased to direct the Eral Sub Registrar not to register any instrument of conveyance or encumbrance till such time the sub division of the property is effected. The order of this Court was duly communicated along with the Petitioner's representation dated 23.12.2011. The interim direction of this Court was also reflected in the encumbrance. When the order of this Court was in force, a document of sale executed by the 5th Respondent in the Writ Petition was accepted for registration by the Sub Registrar, Eral. After coming to know about this, the Petitioner gave a written complaint by Fax to the Inspector General of Registration on 24.11.2011 and got reply dated 20.12.2011 from the Inspector General of Registration to the effect that the Document No.78 of 2011 is only pending for registration and the said document was not registered. A similar reply was given by the Information Officer, when she approached him under the Right to Information Act.
9. One Saravanan, who was incharge of the Sub Registrar Office, Eral, by communication dated 05.12.2011, addressed to the Inspector General of Registration informed that the document is not registered and kept as a document pending for registration vide P 78/2011. She sent a representation, dated 14.03.2012 to the Inspector General of Registration and to the Hon'ble Chief Minister by way of a Grievance Petition. Also, she sent a legal notice, dated 13.01.2012 through her Advocate, calling upon the Sub- Registrar, Eral to return the document, presented for registration. In the meanwhile, she approached the civil Court and obtained an ex parte decree for injunction on 06.08.2011 against her brothers and the proposed buyer. The decree for injunction is still in force.
10. The stand of the Petitioner is that the Tahsildar was not inclined to effect sub division for all the co sharers, in compliance with the order of this Court, inspite of her best efforts and personal visits of her husband to his office on number of occasions. The 3rd Respondent, who worked as Tahsildar, purposely delayed the process of sub division under one pretext or other just to help the 3rd party purchaser. Eventhough measurements were taken on ground and boundaries were fixed for each and every co owner of the land, no proceedings was drawn by the Tahsildar purposely to suit the convenience of the recent purchaser, who obtained the sale deed from the Petitioner's brother's wife in respect of a piece of land encroaching into her share. The 3rd Respondent was transferred and the 4th Respondent came to his place. Even the 4th Respondent had not effected sub division. Again, the 5th Respondent came to the place of the Tahsildar. The Respondents 3 to 5 are the Officers, who failed to comply with the direction of this Court purposely with a clear intention to allow her land being litigious by a stranger. Only to help the purchaser, the Tahsildar delayed the sub division being effected on ground and on record. The 6th Respondent, who is the present Sub Registrar, Eral knowing fully well that there there is an order of injunction against him prohibiting from registering any document in respect of the very same property, registered the document in utter disregard, violation and disobedience of the order of this Court. The respondents 3 to 6 have wilfully and deliberately disobeyed the order of this Court and thereby, committed Contempt of Court. Their wilful disobedience is nothing but a positive act intended to damage the reputation of this Court.
11. In the counter filed by the 1st Respondent / Tahsildar, Srivaikundam Taluk, it is mentioned that he joined as Tahsildar, Srivaikuntam Taluk on 06.02.2014. After joining the duty, received communications from the Government Pleader Office, attached in the Madurai Bench of this Court in regard to the contempt proceedings filed by one Meenakshi, against his predecessor viz., Selvakumar and others. After knowing the contempt proceedings and the Writ Petition filed by the said Meenakshi, he verified the entire files available in his office in connection with said matter. On perusal of the records, he came to understand that the land to an extent of 1.14.0 Hectares (2.82 Acres) in S.No.45/1A1A1A of Korkai Vilalge of Srivaikundam Taluk originally belonged to one Sundarasa Ramalingam, after his demise, his sons had executed an unregistered partition deed among themselves, including the aforesaid land.
12. Further, the joint holders of the land in S.No.45/1A1A1A of Korkai Village of Srivaikundam Taluk had compromised themselves and the same was recorded in O.S.No.63/2008, on the file of the Learned Subordinate Judge, Thoothukudi and a decree was passed regarding the compromise on 05.09.2008, based on the compromise, the said Meenakshi was given 80 cents out of 2.82 Acres of the land in the aforesaid survey Number. Thereafter, the Petitioner had approached the then Tahsildar, Srivaikuntam Taluk, for sub division and her request was rejected by the then Tahsildar, Srivaikuntam Taluk stating that there was objection from the joint pattadars. Against the order of rejection, she filed a Writ Petition before this Court in W.P.(MD)No.499 of 2011. This Court, by an order dated 08.11.2011, set aside the order and remitted the same to the then Tahsildar, Srivaikuntam Taluk, stipulating the time limit of eight weeks to carry out the said process and till such time, the Sub Registrar, Eral, was restrained to register any document in respect of S.No.45/1A1A1A of Korkai Village of Srivaikundam Taluk.
13. While this being the position, one Narayanan has filed another Writ Petition before this Court in W.P.(MD)No.10332 of 2013 in regard to the same Survey Number. In the said Writ Petition, the earlier order passed in W.P(MD)No.499 of 2011 was pointed out by the Petitioner and in view of the same, the Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.10332 of 2013 was disposed of on 25.02.2013 with a direction to the Tahsildar, Srivaikuntam Taluk, to complete the process on or before 30.03.2013. Against the non compliance of the both the orders, the Petitioner has filed the present Contempt Petition against his predecessors.
14. Moreover, since he was new to the Office, he took some time for perusing the entire records, which is voluminous. Thereafter, He took steps to comply with the said order. As per the orders passed in W.P.(MD)No.10332 of 2013, dated 17.09.2014, he had communicated the Superintendent of Police, Thoothukudi, for the purpose of providing bandobast to carry out the survey and demarcation of the Petitioner's property to the extent of 80 cents in S.No.45/1A1A1A of Korkai Village of Srivaikundam Taluk. Also, he had issued notice to all the joint pattadars and concerned parties, as per the orders of this Court on 17.09.2014 informing them that the survey and demarcation of property would be carried out on 19.09.2014 at about 9.00 a.m.,
15. On 19.09.2014, the land was measured in his presence headed by the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Thoothukudi District. Sufficient Police bandobast was also provided to carryout the process. The Petitioner and her husband Nagalingam and the Respondents S.Arunachalam and S.Ramesh, sons of Sundaresa Ramalingam were present. Out of total extent of 1.14.00 Hectares (2.82 Acres) of land in Survey No.45/1A1A1A of Korkai Village of Srivaikundam Taluk, the extent of 0.32.40 (80 cents) within the four boundaries mentioned in the decree, dated 05.05.2008 in O.S.No.63 of 2008 was carried out and sub divided. Boundary stones were also laid in the presence of the Petitioner for which, she has also agreed for and she gave a statement to that effect. Based on the sub division, separate patta was issued to the Petitioner in Patta No.1818. As such, the orders of this Court dated 08.11.2011 and 25.02.2013 were duly complied with. However, the delay occurred in complying with the orders due to continuos opposition of the Petitioner's husband relatives and other co-sharers and the delay is neither wilful nor wanton.
16. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner cites a decision of the Hon'lble Supreme Court in Delhi Development Authority v. Skipper Construction Co.(P) Ltd., and Another reported in (1996 (4) SCC 622), wherein it is held that ' the Supreme Court has power to make appropriate orders in the contempt proceedings to grant relief to the persons aggrieved in order to do complete justice'. Further it is observed that ' for this purpose, the Court can lift the corporate veil of the Company and directions can be issued against the real contemners behind the veil, in addition to order of punishment for the contempt, to restore the illegally derived benefit to the persons defrauded so that the contemners may not be able to retain the fruits of the contempt'.
17. The Learned Counsel also invites the attention of this Court to the decision of this Court in S.Hemalatha v. P.Murali Vittal and Others reported in (2014 (5) MLJ 81) at Special Page 82 and 83, whereby and whereunder, it is observed and held as follows:-
"Nowhere in the counter affidavit, it has been stated by him that he had no knowledge of the status-quo order passed by this Court and his stand is that he has not received the notice in the application even though he entered appearance in the suit. It is not in dispute that the first respondent sold his 1/5th undivided share in the property. Court not inclined to accept the contentions of first respondent that the first respondent has no knowledge of the status quo order passed by this Court. There was ample evidence in the records to say that the first respondent / second defendant knows the status quo order passed by this Court.
1st Respondent impliedly made it clear that as it is an order of status-quo, he can sell the property, as it is not an order of injunction. Even assuming for argument sake, that the first respondent is entitled to have such an opinion, still he should have the wisdom and courtesy to approach this Court to interpret the order of status quo as to whether it will amount to prohibiting him from selling his 1/5th undivided share in the property. Therefore, first respondent / second defendant has wilfully violated the order passed by this Court, the facts of which came to his knowledge after he entered appearance in the suit.
Once it is held that the first respondent has violated the order wilfully, then, he is to be punished for this wilful disobedience of the order. However, the first respondent has clearly stated that all the shareholders including the petitioner and excluding two other persons entered into a sale agreement to sell their respective 1/5th share and therefore, he was made to believe that there is no prohibition for selling his 1/5th undivided share. He has also stated that he is a person of 75 years of age and having some health complications and ailments. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that no harsh punishment should be given to him and instead it would be sufficient if he is directed to pay a cost to the Petitioner for committing wilful contempt of the status quo order passed by this Court. This Court is of the view that, sale deed executed by the first respondent in favour of the third respondent null and void."
18. He invites the attention of this Court to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in All Bengal Excise Licensees Association v. Raghabendra Singh and Others reported in (2007 (4) MLJ 79 (SC)) at special page 80, wherein it is observed as follows:-
"A party to the litigation cannot be allowed to take an unfair advantage by committing breach of an interim order and escape the consequences thereof. By pleading misunderstanding and thereafter retaining the said advantage gained in breach of the order of the Court and the wrong perpetrated by respondent ? contemnors in contumacious disregard of the order of the High Court should not be permitted to hold good. The High Court in that view of the matter committed a grave mis-carriage of justice by not taking into consideration another most important fact that if actually the lottery was held by mistake or by misunderstanding of the orders, then the respondent would have immediately rectified it and would have cancelled the lottery but in the instant case, instead of cancelling the lottery, the respondents have justified their conduct from which the determined declination of obeying the order is clearly proved."
19. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner seeks in aid of the Full Bench decision of this Court in Century Flour Mills Ltd., v. Suppiah reported in ( 88 L.W.285) wherein it is held as follows:-
"The inherent powers of the court under S.151 C.P.C., are vide and are not subject to any limitation. Where in violation of a stay order or injunction against a party, something has been done in disobedience, it will be the duty of the court as a policy to set the wrong right and not allow the perpetuation of the wrong doing. The inherent power will not only be available in such a case, but it is bound to be exercised in that manner, in the interests of justice. Even apart from S.151, as a matter of judicial policy, the court should guard itself against being stultified in circumstances like this by holding that it is powerless to undo a wrong done in disobedience of the Court's orders. But in this case, it is not necessary to go to that extent as we hold that the power is available under S.151, C.P.C.
The question of third parties' rights being affected does not arise in the context, we are concerned with a meeting which had been prohibited and not with what happened at the meeting. If the meeting held was in violation of the court's order and the parties affected approach this court and ask for itself on the ground that what happened at the meeting would be destructive of their standpoint, the court on a consideration of the entire circumstances and facts will have to put back the parties in the same position as they stood prior to the holding of the meeting. That is not to say that, in doing so, the court interferes with third parties rights. All that the court would do in such circumstances is that, since the meeting was prohibited, but all same it was held, in violation of the order of the court, it would refuse to recognise the holding of the meeting as a legal one."
20. The 1st Respondent also in the counter had averred that he never had any intention to disobey the orders of this Court and he tried his level best to comply with the directions of this Court. Further, he had rendered an unblemished service, his service records are also clean, throughout his career he has always shown high respect to the orders of the Hon'ble Court. He has also categorically stated that he has tendering his unconditional apology before this Court for the delay in complying with the orders. If this Court feels that he had disobeyed the orders wilfully.
21. No counter was filed on behalf of the 2nd Respondent.
22. In the counter filed by the 3rd Respondent it is mentioned that he assumed the Office of the Tahsildar, Srivaikundam Taluk, Tuticorin District on 16.09.2011. He was transferred to Sherestadar post on 27.09.2012. After receipt of copy of the order in W.P.(MD)No.499 of 2011, an enquiry was conducted on 22.03.2011, to sub divide the property. The co-sharers of the property prevented the survey and objected for sub division and on 22.03.2012, the Petitioner and the relatives of the Petitioner's husband and other co-sharers were enquired. However, no amicable settlement could be arrived, since the relatives of the Petitioner's husband and other co-sharers objected for survey and sub division.
23. On 24.09.2012, he along with the Surveyor Arumugamangalam, Deputy Surveyor, Revenue Inspector, Zonal Tahsildar, Village Administrative Officer, Village Assistant, Sub Inspector and Taluk Deputy Inspector, visited the property in S.No.45/1A1A1A for Survey the brothers' of the Petitioner's husband objected by stating that the Petitioner is entitled to only 76 cents in S.No.45/1A1A1A and hence, they objected for sub division of 80 cents.
24. Although, this Court had specifically directed him to make decision in accordance with Section 10 of Patta Pass Book Act, due to aforesaid reasons, he could not comply with the order within the time stipulated by this Court. The said act is neither wilful nor wanton, but due to bonafide reasons only.
25. Further, though this Court passed orders on 08.11.2011, the Petitioner has filed the present Contempt Petition only on 25.02.2013. In the meanwhile, one S.Narayanan filed W.P.(MD)No.10332 of 2012, wherein the Petitioner was arrayed as the 3rd Respondent, the said Writ was filed praying for passing of an order in directing the Sub Registrar, Eral to receive and register the Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deed, dated 09.03.2012, relating to a building having an extent of 972 Sq.meter in Southern 24 cents out of Western 64 cents in S.No.45/1A1A1A in Korkai Village, Tuticorin District, as per compromise decree, dated 05.09.2008 in O.S.No.63 of 2008, on the file of the Sub Court, Tuticorin.
26. It is to be pointed out that in W.P.(MD)N.10332 of 2013, the Tahsildar, Srivaikundam Taluk, Tuticorin District was not made as a party. However, this Court, by an order dated 25.02.2013, disposed the Writ Petition with a direction to the Tahsildar, Srivaikundam Taluk, Tuticorin District to take up the matter pursuant to the direction of this Court in W.P.(MD)No.499 of 2011, dated 08.11.2011 and measure the property in accordance with the decree and thereafter, consider the application for issuance of separate patta, under Section 10 of the Patta Pass Book Act, on or before 30.03.2013.
27. Also this Court, while passing the aforesaid order had taken note of the fact that the Tahsildar had not surveyed the property only on account of objection raised by the subsequent purchaser, this Court also permitted the Tahsidlar to take the assistance of the concerned police for the purpose of measuring the property. The Court also directed the Superintendent of Police, Tuticorin District to give adequate Police assistance, if such request is made by the Tahsildar, Srivaikundam Taluk, Tuticorin District.
28. According to the 3rd Respondent, from the above narrated facts it is clear that the order in W.P.(MD)No.499 of 2011, dated 06.11.2011 has merged with the order in W.P.(MD)No.10332 of 2012. This is for this reason the Petitioner, who is a party to W.P.(MD)No.10332 of 2012, has not chosen to file the Contempt Petition for the alleged disobedience of the order in W.P.(MD)No.499 of 2011, dated 06.11.2011, till 25.02.2013. Moreover, even though the Petitioner is a party to W.P.(MD)No.10332 of 2012, without disclosing the same, she has filed the present Contempt Petition.
29. The 3rd Respondent had also stated that he was transferred from the post of Tahsildar, Srivaikundam Taluk, Tuticorin District from 27.09.2012 from the narrated facts, according to him, he had taken sincere efforts to comply with the orders of this Court in W.P.(MD)No.499 of 2011 due to the objections raised by the Petitioner's husband's relatives and co-sharers, he could not survey the property and make sub division. As such, the non implementation of this Court's order is neither wilful nor wanton.
30.In the counter, the 4th Respondent had stated that he assumed Office of the Tahsildar, Srivaikundam Taluk, Tuticorin District on 28.09.2012 and he was transferred, as Tahsildar (Election), District Collectorate, Tuticorin on 31.01.2013. As he served as Tahsildar, Srivaikundam Taluk, for the short span to hardly 4 months, he was engaged in preventing the illicit transport of sands in the River Thamirabarani along with the special team. Moreover, very often there would be a communal problems and the Revenue Officials were engaged in sorting out the problems. Due to the aforesaid reasons, he could not implement the orders of this Court, within the time stipulated by this Court. Further, he was transferred from the post of Tahsildar, Srivaikundam Taluk, Tuticorin District from 31.01.2013.
31. In the counter filed by the 5th Respondent, he had stated that he had assumed the Office of the Tahsildar, Srivaikundam Taluk, Tuticorin District on 02.02.2013 and he was transferred to the Special Tahsildar, Tsunami, Collector Office, Thoothukudi on 28.05.2013. After coming to know about the order of this Court in W.P.(MD)No.499 of 2011, he visited the property along with Surveyor Arumugamangalam, Deputy Surveyor, Revenue Inspector, Zonal Tahsildar, Village Administrative Officer, Village Assistant, on 22.02.2013. The co-sharers of the property prevented the survey and objected for sub division. On 21.03.2013, he visited the property along with Surveyor Arumugamangalam, Deputy Surveyor, Revenue Inspector, Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, Village Administrative Officer, Village Assistant. Then also, the brothers of the Petitioner's husband and other co-sharers objected for survey and sub division. Again on 12.04.2013, he made an attempt to survey and sub divide the property. Since the relatives of the Petitioner's husband and other co-sharers objected for survey and sub division, he could not survey the property. Even though this Court specifically directed him to make decision in accordance with Section 10 of Patta Pass Book Act, due to the aforesaid action, he could not comply with the orders of this Court, within the time stipulated by this court. The above said act is neither wilful nor wanton, but due to bonafide reasons only.
32. Also, he was transferred from the post of Tahsildar, Srivaikundam Taluk, Tuticorin District from 28.05.2013. He had made sincere efforts to comply with the orders of this Court in W.P.(MD)No.499 of 2011. Due to the objections raised by the Petitioner's husband's relatives and co sharers, he could not survey the property and make sub division.
33. In the counter filed by the 6th Respondent, it is interalia mentioned that a document pending for registeration vide P.78 of 2011, dated 18.11.2011 registered by one U.Brammasakthi. This Court had directed the Tahsildar, Srivaikuntam Taluk, to decide the claim of the Writ Petitioner within a period of either weeks' only in W.P.(MD)No.499 of 2011. The time limit of eight weeks ordered by this Court was over on 02.01.2012 itself. As such, the document is kept pending for more than 1-1/2 years. The said document was registered as Document No.37 of 2013 on 18.01.2013 and the same was returned to the concerned, as per the Registration Rules.
34. Further, it is represented on behalf of the 6th Respondent that the time stipulated by this Court had already expired and the Tahsidlar, Srivaikundam Taluk, to whom the matter was remitted back for enquiry had not passed any orders due to various factors. The document was kept pending as P.17 of 2011 from 18.11.2011 for want of orders of Tahsildar.
35. The averments of the Petitioner that there was an order of injection prohibiting from registering any document in the impugned property was denied as false. The document in question was registered only on 18.01.2013 after disposed of W.P.(MD)No.499 of 2011 on 08.11.2011, granting a time limit of eight weeks to the Tahsidlar, Srivaikundam Taluk, which expired on 02.01.2012 itself. As such, there is no violation, disregard and disobedience. Further, there is no contempt of Court, as alleged by the Petitioner.
36. That apart, he had tendered his unconditional apologies before this Court and prayed for to discharge him from contempt proceedings in the event of this Court coming to the conclusion that he had committed any contempt of Court.
37. It is to be borne in mind that a Court of Law should not punish each and everyone, who has violated the Court's order, unless the disobedience is shown to be a deliberate and wanton one. Also that, the parties ignoring the orders of Court ordinarily cannot escape liability by tendering a belated apologies, in the considered opinion of this Court.
38. In this connection, this Court, clearly points out that in the order dated 08.11.2011 in W.P.(MD)No.499 of 2011, filed by the Petitioner N.Meenakshi v. The Tahsildar, Srivaikundam Taluk, Thoothukudi District and four others, in paragraph 8, while setting aside the impugned order, this Court remitted the matter to the 1st Respondent for making a decision in accordance with Section 10 of Tamil Nadu Patta Passbook Act, after due notice to the objectors, if any, and further directed that the said exercise to be carried out within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order and till such time, the 2nd Respondent was restrained (The Sub Registrar, Eral, Thoothkudi District) from registration of any documents in respect of S.No.45/1A1A1A, situated at Korkai Vilalge, Srivaikundam Taluk.
39. Further, in W.P.(MD)No.10332 of 2013 filed by one S.Narayanan (the Writ Petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.499 of 2011 was arrayed as 3rd Respondent), this Court, on 25.02.2013 passed order, directing the Tahsildar, Srivaikundam Taluk, Tuticorin District to take up the matter pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in W.P.(MD)N.499 of 2011 on 08.11.2011 and to measure the property in accordance with the decree and thereafter consider the application for issuance of separate patta under Section 10 of the Patta Passbook Act on or before 30.03.2013.
40. Even though, the Petitioner was issued with a separate patta bearing No.1818, the same was issued admittedly in a belated manner, in the considered opinion of this Court. As such, this Court holds that only the first part of the order dated 08.11.2011 in W.P.(MD)No.499 of 2011 was complied with. (in regard to issuance of patta). Although, on behalf of Respondents 1 to 5 they had stated in the affidavit that they joined the Office on certain day, after the orders passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.499 of 2011, dated 08.11.2011 etc., some of them had referred to the objections made by the Petitioner's husband's relatives and other co- sharers for survey and as such, they could not survey the property etc., as such, even though they had come out with their affidavits that the delay for issuance of patta had occurred based on one reason or other, yet this Court is of the considered view that they are not the wholehearted reasons for the non compliance of the orders passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.499 of 2011, dated 08.11.2011 and the orders passed by this Court dated 25.02.2013 in W.P.(MD)No.10332 of 2013.
41. In any event, this Court is not happy in the manner in which the Respondents 1 to 5 had acted in the matter. In short, their action / inaction / belated action is not appreciated by this Court, in the interest of justice. However, this Court directs the Respondents 1 to 5 to be more vigilant and careful and to act with great care and caution in future, especially, when they discharge their duties, particularly, to follow the directions issued by a Court of Law. Viewed in that perspective, this Court is not proceeding any further against them in the present Contempt Petition.
42. In so far as the act of the 6th Respondent is concerned, viz., in regard to the registration of the document, as Document No.37 of 2013 on 18.01.2013, it is to be pointed out that the 6th Respondent cannot take umbrage on the ground that the time of eight weeks granted by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.499 of 2011, as per order dated 08.11.2011 had lapsed / expired and that the registration authorities cannot keep the document pending in the absence of specific orders of the Court. In fact, the 6th Respondent should have approached this Court and sought appropriate orders from this Court as to what he should do or how to proceed in the matter in question. However, the 6th Respondent had not resorted to such a course. Instead, he had registered the pending document as full-fledged document on 18.01.2013 and returned the documents to the concerned party. This act of the 6th Respondent is clearly in violation of the orders passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.499 of 2011, dated 08.11.2011. In short, the 6th Respondent cannot take a strange / whimsical plea that the time of eight weeks granted by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.499 of 2011, dated 08.11.2011 had expired on 02.01.2012 itself. Viewed in that perspective, this Court clearly comes to a conclusion that the 6th Respondent had committed a clear contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and therefore, he is liable tobe punished for the same. Resultantly, this Court holds him guilty under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
43. However, this Court, taking note of the 6th Respondent's health problem and also considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and the gravity of the contempt committed by the 6th Respondent, directs the 6th Respondent to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only) to the Registry of this Court, within a period of one week from today. It is made clear that in the event of the 6th Respondent committing default to pay the aforesaid fine amount, he is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one day.
44. With the above observations, the Contempt Petition is disposed of. Respondents 1 to 5 are discharged. Further, the Document No.37 of 2013, registered on 18.01.2013 (sale deed) by the 6th Respondent, is declared by this Court as null and void, since the said document was registered disregard to the orders passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.499 of 2011, dated 08.11.2011, since the same ought not to be allowed to stand, as it would cause an affront to the majesty of this Court.
To
1.Mr.V.Selvakumar The Tahsildar, Srivaikundam Taluk,Srivaikundam, Tuticorin District.
2.The Sub-Registrar, Eral Sub-Registrar Office, Eral, Srivaikundam Taluk, Tuticorin District.
3.Mr.Nayinar Pillai, Sherestadar, Collectorate, Tuticorin,,Tuticorin District.
4.Mr.Madasamy, Tahsildar (Election), District Collectorate, Tuticorin.
5.Mr.V.Selvakumar The Tahsildar, Srivaikundam Taluk,Srivaikundam, Tuticorin District.
6. Mr.I.Sankaran, Sub-Registrar, Eral Sub-Registrar Office Eral, Srivaikundam Taluk, Tuticorin District.
7. The Registrar (Judicial) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Madurai.
(for information and necessary follow up action).