1996 (7) TMI 582 - HC - Indian Laws

Court dismisses contempt application for demolishing government land superstructure during writ petition, citing expired interim order.

P. Kuppammal Versus The State of Tamil Nadu and two Ors.

The court dismissed the contempt application against the respondent for demolishing a superstructure on government land during the pendency of a writ ... - Issues:Contempt application against respondent for demolishing superstructure on government land without following procedure under Madias Land Encroachment Act. Interpretation of interim orders passed by the court and whether respondents committed contempt by removing the encroachment during the pendency of the writ petition.Analysis:The petitioner filed a contempt application against the respondent for demolishing a superstructure on government land without following the procedure under the Madias Land Encroachment Act. The petitioner alleged that the respondent had disobeyed the interim stay order granted by the court. The court had earlier passed interim orders, extending the stay period, and eventually the respondents removed the encroachment. The respondent, in a counter affidavit, admitted to removing the encroachment due to a number of encroachments hindering vehicular traffic, but acknowledged that the removal of the petitioner's structure during the pendency of the writ petition was a mistake. The respondent tendered an unconditional apology and restored possession to the petitioner.The counsel for the petitioner argued that the removal of the encroachment was deliberate disobedience of the court order, while the Additional Government Pleader contended that the interim stay had expired before the removal, absolving the respondents of contempt. The court noted that technically, the interim order had indeed expired before the removal, but questioned the respondents' conduct in demolishing the structure during the pendency of the writ petition. The court highlighted the admission in the counter affidavit that the removal should not have occurred during the pending petition, attributing it to inadvertence. Despite accepting the explanation and apology from the second respondent, the District Collector, the court expressed concern over such errors happening due to inadvertence, emphasizing the need for caution in administrative actions.Referring to a judgment cited by the Additional Government Pleader, the court distinguished the case at hand, where the interim order was communicated to the respondents through the Government Pleader. The court clarified that technically, the respondents did not commit contempt due to the expired interim order, but emphasized the importance of avoiding intentional disobedience. Considering the second respondent's instructions to restore possession to the petitioner and the lack of deliberate contempt, the court dismissed the petition, ruling that the respondents had not committed willful contempt of court.