In this contempt case, the court found insufficient evidence that the unofficial respondents violated the status quo order following a writ petition regarding land possession. Due to lack of material proving forcible takeover, the proceedings were terminated.
Contempt case dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN
CONTEMPT CASE No.1226 of 2011
ORDER:
The order, violation of which has given rise to the present contempt case, is the order of this Court in WPMP.No.27255 of 2011 in W.P.No.22344 of 2011 dated 08.08.2011 whereby this Court directed that status quo as on the date of the order with regards possession be maintained for a period of four weeks, and the said order of status quo was extended thereafter.
While the petitioner-temple would rely on certain documents to contend that they were handed over possession by the Mandal Revenue Officer, the unofficial respondents, in their counter affidavit, would deny the same and contend that it is they who had been in possession of the subject lands as on the date of the order passed by this Court, and the petitioner-temple was seeking to evict them under the guise of the order passed by this Court.
Since the petitioner’s contention of having been put in possession has been denied by the respondents, who also claim to have raised a standing crop in the subject lands, this Court is in no position to ascertain whether or not the order of this Court has been violated and, if the unofficial respondents were in possession prior to the order of this Court, the order of this Court enabled them to continue to remain in possession even thereafter. In the absence of adequate material being placed on record by the petitioner-temple in support of their contention that the respondents had taken possession forcibly from them after this Court had passed the interim order, I see no reason to proceed against the respondents, or to punish them, under the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
As the respondents cannot be said to have violated the order of this Court, much less wilfully and deliberately, the Contempt Case is dismissed.
RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J
Date:11.06.2012 usd
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the unofficial respondents violated the interim order of status quo by remaining in possession of the land.
Whether there is adequate evidence to establish that possession was forcibly taken after the interim order was passed.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioner-Temple
Unofficial Respondents
RAMESH RANGANATHAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
