1996 (7) TMI 582

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g the procedure laid down under the Madias Land Encroachment Act, the respondents tried to evict the petitioner. Hence the writ petition has been filed. 2. On 23.5.95 this Court passed the following order; "In view of the petitioner's averment that no notice under Section 7 of the Act was given to her, notice of motion returnable in three weeks. Petitioner not to be dispossessed by respondent in the meanwhile. Government Advocate is directed to take notice." Subsequently the W.M.P. was listed on 30.6.95 and this Court passed the following order: "Interim order is extended by two weeks. Post the writ petition on 10.7.1995." Again on 25.7.95 this Court passed an order as follows: "Post on 1.8.95 for order....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... order of this court and with deliberate intention to disobey the order of this court. 5. The learned Additional Government Pleader represents that the interim stay expired as early as 1.8.95 and the obstruction was removed only on 11.8.95 by which date the interim order has not been extended by this Court. On the date of action of the respondents, there was no interim order at all and hence there is no contempt on the part of the respondents. He also relied upon the judgment reported in Rathinasabapathy v. Palaniappa Kandar, 1995CriLJ3622 . 7. I carefully considered the contention of both the counsel. It is true that the interim order had been extended till 1.8.95 and after that there was no extension of the interim order. The respondent....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r the contempt. In the judgment reported in Rathinasabapathy v. Palaniappa Kandar, 1995CriLJ3622 the Supreme Court has held as follows: "With respect to the High Court we find it difficult to comprehend how the blame could be laid at the doors of the appellants. There is no doubt that the operation of the injunction was limited to three weeks. It is nobody's case that it was extended thereafter. The appellants showed respect to the order of the Court by stopping the construction as soon as the injunction order was received. After the expiry of three weeks when they did not receive any order continuing the injunction, they proceeded with the construction. As such it is difficult to understand how it can be said that the appellants....