K.A. Swami, CJ. - (1.) IN this petition under Secs. 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, the petitioner has prayed for punishing the respondent for his intentional and wilful obstruction in giving effect to an order of attachment of movables ordered in R.E.P.No.99 of 1994 in L.A.O.P.No.135 of 1990 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Namakkal.
(2.) TWO bits of land belonging to the petitioner, comprised in Survey No.545/7 and 546/3 measuring 0.41 and 1.78 acres respectively, totalling 2.19 acres, situate in Chandrasekarapurah village, Rasipuram Taluk, Salem District, were acquired for the purpose of providing houses to the persons belonging to Adi Dravidar community. An award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer awarding a compensation of Rs.52,218. The possession of the lands was taken by the Government on 1.3.1990, pursuant to the award. Aggrieved by the said award, the complainant sought for a reference to the Civil Court. Accordingly, the case was referred under Sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, to the Sub Court, Namakkal. The reference was registered as L.A.O.P.No.135 of 1990. The Sub Court, Namakkal enhanced the compensation to Rs.5,73,277.83, with interest at 9% per annum from 2.3.1990, for a period of one year and at 15% per annum for the subsequent period till the date of realisation, less Rs.25. It was this award which was put into execution in R.E.P.No.99 of 1994, in which the petitioner had prayed for attachment of the following movable properties: A Jeep No.T.M.T. 5852 belonging to the Tamil Nadu State and under the custody and possession of Namakkal Divisional Development Officer -Value Rs.50,000. Tables - 10, Chairs - 25, Electric fans -10, Typewriting machines - 3, available at the Revenue Divisional Officer's Office, Namakkal - value Rs.30,000. On 22.4.1994, though served, the respondent in the Execution Petition was absent, therefore he was set ex parte and an order for attachment of the aforesaid movables was issued. As the attachment was not effected the warrant was re-issued on 7.7.1994, returnable by 9.8.1994. Even then, the attachment was not effected for want of police aid. The petition filed by the petitioner seeking police aid was allowed only on 13.10.1995. On 7.12.1994 it was ordered that the attachment be effected by 18.1.1995 and the same was not effected because the Personal Assistant to the respondent did not allow it to be effected and made the following endorsement: "Necessary action is being taken. The entire amount will be remitted in a fort-night. In the meantime the execution of warrant may kindly be stopped in the public interest." The Bailiff returned the warrant of attachment with the following sherrah, dated 9.6.1994: "On 6.6.1994 went to village and the address named here to effect the attachment and came to know that the Jeep has gone to a camp and since an endorsement is made as above and the attachment was obstructed the attachment warrant is returned without executing it and along with the endorsement of the officer." The petitioner then filed an application on 5.8.1994 stating that the respondent had refused to allow the attachment of the properties and obstructed to effect the same, and, therefore, he prayed for directing police assistance for effecting the attachment. That application was allowed only on 7.12.1994 and the attachment was directed to be effected with police aid and the same be returned by 18.1.1995. However, the police did not render assistance on the ground that the order for rendering police assistance should come from the Superintendent of Police, therefore, the Bailiff returned the warrant on 10.1.1995 with the following sherrah: "On 6.1.95 went to the said village stated herein, along with the petitioner herein to effect the said attachment warrant for effecting attachment and for police aid, the said police station were approached as it was stated that police aid can be given only if the order comes from the Superintendent of Police, the attachment could not be effected and after getting the said endorsement from the petitioner, the attachment warrant is returned." In view of this, the petitioner had to approach the High Court with W.P.No.5939 of 1995, seeking a direction to the Superintendent of Police, Salem, and the Inspector of Police, Namakkal to grant police protection to the Court Amin of the Subordinate Court Namakkal for effecting the attachment of the movables as ordered in R.E.P.No.99 of 1994. Learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that having regard to the order passed by the Subordinate Judge Namakkal in the execution proceedings, the Inspector of Police, Namakkal will act in aid of the order of the executive Court and give necessary help and protection to the Court Amin in carrying out the work of attachment as ordered by the Court. The writ petition was disposed of on 7.8.1995 in terms of the aforesaid submission made by the learned Additional Government Pleader. Inspite of the direction from the High Court, Police aid was not given, therefore, the Deputy Nazir of the Court returned the warrant with the following submission made on oath, on 17.11.1995. "It is hereby submitted that police aid was not available till 16.11.95 to execute the above warrant. Sd/A.Vembusekaran, Petitioner 16.11.95 Till 16.11.95, inspite of several visits, police aid is not available with a written statement from the petitioner, the warrant is returned un-executed. Sd/O.R.Shanmugam, Sr.Bailif 17.11.95 Police aid not available Solemnly affirmed Sd/N.L.N., Deputy Nazir, 17.11.95. The petitioner again approached the Superintendent of Police, Salem, by a representation dated 29.11.1995 requesting him to direct the Sub Inspector of Police (Law & Order), Namakkal to render assistance for effecting the attachment. After all these efforts, ultimately, police aid was given on 11.12.1995, but the attachment could not be effected in view of the fact that the respondent herein prevented the effecting of the attachment of the aforesaid movable properties. Therefore, the bailiff submitted the following report on 11.12.1995: "Report regarding obstruction to attachment of schedule property: On 11.12.1995 to attach the property described in the schedule to the attachment warrant, hereunder went to the office of the Divisional Development Office along with the petitioner, police, the witnesses who have signed hereunder, to attach the schedule property namely T.M.D. 5852 Jeep, when it was enquired, it was informed that the jeep has gone to Mohanur on camp duty and that the probable time of arrival of the jeep is not known and the jeep is not available for attachment. When the Divisional Development Officer was contacted in person at his office, when the attachment warrant was shown to him and when he was requested to permit to effect the attachment of the schedule property, he prevented the effecting of attachment of the schedule properties. Hence, it is prayed objections and the obstructions by the respondent may be removed and orders may be given by this Hon"ble Court." The aforesaid report has also been signed by two official witnesses, viz., a Police Constable and a Head Constable apart from two private witnesses by name Karuppannan and Mariappan. The petitioner also filed a petition on 11.12.1995 stating that the Senior Bailiff along with the police and witnesses went to the office of the respondent to effect attachment of the movables. However, me respondent refused to allow attachment of the movable properties obstructed and prevented them from effecting the attachment. Therefore, the petitioner also prayed for removal of the obstruction in effecting the attachment. These facts are borne out from the records produced in the Type Set. Apart from filing the aforesaid petition for removal of the obstruction in the attachment, the petitioner has also filed a Contempt Application under Secs.10 and 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, for punishing the respondent for his intentional and wilful obstruction in giving effect to the order of attachment as ordered in R.E.P.No.99 of 1994. In the English translation of the report of the Bailiff, dated 11.12.1995, instead of mentioning as "the Revenue Divisional" Officer", it is wrongly mentioned as "Divisional Development Officer." The respondent is the Sub-Collector and he is also the Revenue Divisional Officer.
(3.) IN paragraph V of the petition, the petitioner has specifically stated that the Senior Bailiff met the respondent herein and explained him about the order of attachment passed by the Sub-Judge, Namakkal and also about the police aid directed to the said effect; that the respondent, after hearing the request of the Bailiff to allow the attachment of the properties, did not permit the same to be done and that he wilfully obstructed the normal course of justice and by such recalcitrant attitude the respondent has undermined the authority of the Court and has given scant regard for an order passed by a competent Court. IN paragraph VI, the petitioner has further stated that the act of the respondent in causing obstruction and preventing the effecting of attachment of the movable is not only calculated to obstruct or interfere with the course of justice, but also amounts to undermining the prestige of courts and also makes a mockery of the entire judicial proceedings; that in the eyes of public, it creates an impression that the Sub-Collector is above the judicial orders passed by competent courts and that the obstruction caused by the respondent was intentional and wilful. IN paragraph VII of the petition, the petitioner has specifically stated that inspite of the information given to the respondent about the order passed by the executive Court his wilful and intentional disobedience to the same constitutes a clear contempt of Court and has lowered the prestige of the judicial proceedings in the estimation of the general public and that if such obstruction is not punished the litigants like the petitioner would lose all confidence in the judicial system. Again in paragraph VIII, he has further stated that the properties sought to be attached belong to the Government and the respondent being a government servant duty-bound to co-operate with the carrying out of an order of attachment passed by the competent court. INstead, the respondent has not only obstructed the process of effecting the attachment but has wilfully disobeyed the order of the Court and that the question of removal of obstruction does not arise in the case of the respondent as he is a Government servant and has no business to obstruct the attachment of the movables as ordered by the Court.;