Disposed¶33

P. Velliyammal, v. Mr. M.Pasupathy

Madras HC24 Mar 2025CONT P/816/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court Cont.P.No.816 of 2025, decided 24.03.2025 by D.Bharatha Chakravarthy J.; contempt petition under Section 11, Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, closed/disposed without punishment; alleged willful disobedience of order dated 05.06.2020 in W.P. No. 28480 of 2012 (patta application, land S.P.No.130/3A, Kallakurichi Taluk, Villupuram District); fresh Tahsildar order dated 10.03.2025 produced; test of 'paper compliance' versus spirit of directions; liberty kept open to challenge erroneous compliance order in manner known to law.

What did the court decide?

No punishment imposed; contempt petition closed. Liberty of the contempt petitioner kept open to seek remedies against the order dated 10.03.2025. ¶33

P. Velliyammal, Vs Mr. M.Pasupathy — Contempt of Court | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No punishment imposed; contempt petition closed. Liberty of the contempt petitioner kept open to seek remedies against the order dated 10.03.2025.

¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether the conduct of the respondent Tahsildar in dealing with the remand directions of the order dated 05.06.2020 in W.P.No.28480 of 2012 (including the alleged issuance of patta on 10.01.2024 without notice to the petitioner) amounts to willful disobedience of that order warranting punishment under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. +1 more

¶16

Court's answer

No punishment was imposed for contempt; the contempt petition stands closed, with the liberty of the contempt petitioner kept open to seek remedies against the order dated 10.03.2025.

¶33

Ratio / Principle

Where the compliance/fresh order states reasons with reference to the directions given, the Court cannot further go into the matter in a contempt petition unless the compliance is merely a paper compliance without considering the spirit of the order.

¶32

Key takeaways

If the fresh order is erroneous with reference to any findings made in the earlier round, or in any other manner, it is open to the petitioner to contest the said order in the manner known to law.ratio¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Contempt Petition (S.11, Contempt of Courts Act, 1971) by P. Vellaiyammal against the Tahsildar, Kallakurichi Taluk, alleging willful disobedience of the Madras High Court's order dated 05.06.2020 in W.P.No.28480 of 2012, which had set aside a revenue order, remitted her patta application (S.P.No.130/3A) for fresh consideration with directions for a noticed spot inspection, a records-based enquiry, and a bar on assigning the land to third parties till final orders. Counsel alleged a patta issued on 10.01.2024 violated these directions. On the Additional Government Pleader producing the fresh order dated 10.03.2025 (petitioner given opportunity and heard; surveyor inspection with report; findings that only third parties are in possession after constructing a house), the Court held that where a compliance order states reasons with reference to the directions, contempt jurisdiction cannot go further unless the compliance is mere paper compliance ignoring the spirit of the order; any error may be contested in the manner known to law. Petition closed; liberty reserved. Bench: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy, J. Decided 24.03.2025.

¶1

Cont.P.No.816 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 24.03.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

¶6

Cont.P.No.816 of 2025

¶7

P. VELLAIYAMMAL, WIFE OF PANJAN, INDHILI VILLAGE (PO), KALLAKURICHI TALUK, VILLUPURAM DISTRICT. ... Petitioner

¶8

¶9

MR.M.PASUPATHY THE TAHSILDAR, KALLAKURICHI TALUK, VILLUPURAM DISTRICT, VILLUPURAM. ... Respondent

¶10

Prayer: Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 praying to punish the respondents for the willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No. 28480 of 2012, order dated 05.06.2020.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ventakesh For Respondent : Dr.S.Suriya Additional Government Pleader

¶12

1/5

¶13

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶14

Cont.P.No.816 of 2025

¶15

ORDER

¶16

The contempt petition has been filed complaining of willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court dated 05.06.2020 in W.P. No. 28480 of 2012.

¶17

The relevant portions of the said order are contained in paragraphs 6

¶18

and 7, and the same are extracted hereunder for ready reference:-

¶19

“6. If the respondent is to reject the petitioner’s claim based on an alleged admission made by her, it has to be established that the admission is candid and unequivocal. Even assuming that the petitioner had given such a statement, the respondent, being a revenue official, has to specifically record in his order that the land is not in possession of the petitioner and he cannot go merely by an alleged statement made by the petitioner. For such a purpose, a report should have been called for from the Revenue Inspector or the Village Administrative Officer concerned and if necessary, the Tahsildar himself could have conducted an inspection. However, no such procedure is shown to have been adopted, which, if adopted, would have been a reasonable and proper procedure to be followed by the Revenue Authorities. Considering all these facts, this Court is inclined to interfere with the impugned order and remits the matter back to the respondent for a fresh consideration.

¶20

7. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the respondent for a fresh consideration of the

¶21

2/5

¶22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶23

Cont.P.No.816 of 2025

¶24

petitioner’s application for grant of patta in respect of the land comprised in S.P.No.130/3A. The respondent shall issue further directions to his officers to do a spot inspection of the subject land after notice to the petitioner, conduct an enquiry, in which, all the records shall be perused and thereafter take a decision on merits and in accordance with law. In the light of the statement made in the counter filed by the respondent that there is no proposal to allot the subject land to any third party, the respondent shall not assign the land to any other party till final orders are passed in terms of the above directions. No costs. Consequently, the connected WMP is closed.”

¶25

Mr.S.Venkatesh , the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the contempt petitioner, pointing to paragraph No. 3 of the order, would submit that earlier, the Court had perused the records and come to a prima facie conclusion. Further, the fact that the land had been allotted in favour of a third person was never brought to the notice of this Court. The petitioner was also not issued any notice and no opportunity was granted. Therefore, the action of the respondent amounts to contempt. He would further submit that, in the interregnum, a patta had also been issued on 10.01.2024, in direct violation of the directions of the Court.

¶26

When the matter came up for hearing, the learned Additional Government Pleader, taking notice on behalf of the respondent, produced the 3/5

¶27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶28

Cont.P.No.816 of 2025

¶29

order dated 10.03.2025. The relevant portions of the order, contained in Pages

¶30

2 and 3, state that the petitioner was given an opportunity and the petitioner made his submissions and was heard. The surveyor also inspected the property and a report has been submitted. The issue has been examined in light of the judgment. Findings have also been given with reference to the possession of the property, stating that only third parties are in possession after constructing a house.

¶31

Therefore, when the impugned order states the reasons with reference

¶32

to the directions given, unless the compliance is merely a paper compliance without considering the spirit of the order, the Court cannot further go into the matter in a contempt petition. However, if the orders are erroneous with reference to any findings made in the earlier round or in any other manner whatsoever, it would be open for the petitioner to contest the said order in the manner known to law.

¶33