[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Narmadha vs R.Rajendran on 23 February, 2026
Author: P.Velmurugan
Bench: P.Velmurugan
Contempt Appeal No.23 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 30 / 01 / 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 23 / 02 / 2026
Coram:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
Contempt Appeal No.23 of 2023
Narmadha,
Special District Revenue Officer (Land Acquisition),
National Highways Project,
Bangalore to Chennai Expressway,
Kanchipuram, Kanchipuram District. ... Appellant
Vs.
1.R.Rajendran
S/o.Ramasamy, No.50/194, Thirumangaiyazhwar Street,
Sriperumbudur Town & Taluk, Kanchipuram District.
2.Thiru.P.Ponniah,
District Collector, Kanchipuram District.
3.Tmt.Meena,
Special Tahsildar (LA), National Highways Project,
Bangalore to Chennai Expressway, Kanchipuram,
Kanchipuram District.
4.Shri.Pawan Kumar,
Project Director, National Highway Authorities of India,
No.DP,34, Sri Towers South Phase, 3rd Floor,
Guindy, Chennai - 600 032.
5.Tmt.Pichaiammal
Block development Officer (B.P.),
Sriperumbudur, Kanchipuram District. ... Respondents
(R2 deleted as per order dated 25.01.2023 made
in Sub.Appl.No.733 of 2022 in Cont.P.No.642 of 2020)
1/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/02/2026 03:02:31 pm )
Contempt Appeal No.23 of 2023
Prayer : This Contempt Appeal is filed under Section 19 of the Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971 to set aside the impugned order dated 04.08.2023 made in
Contempt Petition No.642 of 2020.
For Appellant : Mr.M.Ramamoorthi
Senior Advocate
For M/s.P.Suresh Prabhu
For Respondents : No appearance for R1
R2 to R5 dismissed
vide order dated 27.06.2025
*****
JUDGMENT
P.VELMURUGAN, J.
This Contempt Appeal has been filed under Section 19 of the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 challenging the order dated 04.08.2023
passed by the learned Single Judge in Cont.P.No.642 of 2020, whereby the
appellant, who was the second respondent in the contempt petition, was held
guilty of wilful disobedience of the order passed by this Court in
W.M.P.No.3683 of 2020 in W.P.No.3177 of 2020 dated 10.02.2020.
2. The respondent herein, namely R.Rajendran, had filed W.P.No.3177
of 2020 before this Court. The said writ petition arose out of land acquisition
proceedings initiated for formation of Bangalore–Chennai Expressway by
the National Highways Authority of India. For the purpose of the said
National Highways Scheme, lands situated in Sriperumbudur Taluk of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/02/2026 03:02:31 pm )
Kanchipuram District, particularly in Nemili-A and Ayakolathur villages,
were sought to be acquired pursuant to notification issued by the Union
Ministry of Road Transport and Highways on 05.12.2017. In the course of
acquisition proceedings, awards were passed and compensation amounts
were being disbursed to land owners.
3. The writ petitioner claimed that he had purchased plots in various
layouts formed in the said villages. According to him, in the approved layout
plans developed by the promoters, certain portions of land had been
earmarked for public purposes such as roads, streets, school, park and other
public utilities and were designated as Open Space Reservation lands. It was
his specific case that such OSR lands had been handed over to the local body
concerned by way of gift deeds and therefore the said lands had already
vested with the local body and ceased to be private lands of any individual.
4. The grievance of the writ petitioner was that during the land
acquisition proceedings for the National Highways project, certain
individuals managed to get the lands which were originally earmarked as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/02/2026 03:02:31 pm )
OSR lands registered in their names as if they were private lands and on that
basis claimed compensation from the land acquisition authorities. According
to the writ petitioner, huge sums of compensation had already been
disbursed or were in the process of being disbursed to such individuals in
respect of lands which were originally earmarked as OSR lands and which
had already vested with the local body. It was further contended that if at all
compensation was payable in respect of such lands, the same ought to be
distributed proportionately to the plot owners in the layout and not to private
individuals who had subsequently obtained registration.
5. In these circumstances, the writ petitioner submitted a
representation to the authorities requesting them not to disburse
compensation to private individuals in respect of the lands in question and to
consider his claim. As there was no response and apprehending imminent
disbursement of compensation, he filed W.P.No.3177 of 2020 before this
Court seeking appropriate directions.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/02/2026 03:02:31 pm )
6. When the writ petition came up for admission, this Court, by order
dated 10.02.2020 made in W.M.P.No.3683 of 2020 in W.P.No.3177 of 2020,
passed an interim direction to the effect that the respondents therein shall
determine the compensation payable in respect of the lands in question and
deposit the same in an interest-bearing fixed deposit in a nationalised bank
in the name of the Registrar General of this Court, pending further orders.
The purpose of the said interim order was to ensure that the compensation
amount was safeguarded and not disbursed to any private party until the
dispute raised in the writ petition was resolved.
7. According to the writ petitioner, the interim order dated 10.02.2020
was duly communicated to the respondents in the writ petition including the
present appellant, who was then serving as Special District Revenue Officer
(Land Acquisition), National Highways Project, Bangalore to Chennai
Expressway, Kanchipuram District and who was the competent authority
dealing with disbursement of compensation. It was alleged that despite
receipt of the said order and despite the clear direction of this Court to
deposit the compensation amount in the manner indicated therein, the
authorities failed to comply with the same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/02/2026 03:02:31 pm )
8. The writ petitioner alleged that the appellant and other officials,
with full knowledge of the subsisting interim order of this Court, proceeded
to disburse compensation amounts to certain private individuals during the
period subsequent to the order dated 10.02.2020. According to him, such
disbursement was made in clear violation of the interim direction issued by
this Court and amounted to wilful disobedience.
9. On the above allegations, the writ petitioner filed Contempt Petition
No.642 of 2020 under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for
punishing the respondents therein for wilful disobedience of the order passed
in W.M.P.No.3683 of 2020 in W.P.No.3177 of 2020 dated 10.02.2020. In the
contempt petition it was specifically contended that despite knowledge of
the order of this Court and despite legal notice and communications, the
respondents failed to deposit the compensation amount as directed and
instead disbursed the same to private parties, thereby committing deliberate
and wilful contempt of the order of this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/02/2026 03:02:31 pm )
10. The contempt petition came up for hearing before the learned
Single Judge and notices were issued to the respondents. The present
appellant, who was arrayed as the second respondent in the contempt
petition, entered appearance through counsel and filed her response. The
appellant submitted that there was no intention to disobey the order of this
Court and that the disbursement of compensation had been made on the
basis of revenue records and documents available at the relevant time. It
was further submitted that the interim order of this Court dated 10.02.2020
was understood to apply only to compensation payable for OSR lands. The
amounts that were paid related to lands recorded as private lands in the
official records. The appellant stated that the payment was made due to an
inadvertent and bona fide misunderstanding of the interim order, and not
with any wilful or intentional violation of this Court’s order.
11. The learned Single Judge, after considering the materials placed
on record and the explanations offered by the respondents, examined
whether the interim order dated 10.02.2020 had been complied with and
whether the subsequent disbursement of compensation amounted to wilful
disobedience. Upon such consideration, the learned Single Judge found that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/02/2026 03:02:31 pm )
disbursement of compensation had been made after the interim order of this
Court and after knowledge thereof. The learned Single Judge held that the
direction issued by this Court was clear and that the authorities were bound
to deposit the compensation amount instead of disbursing the same to private
parties. The explanation offered by the present appellant was not accepted as
sufficient to establish absence of wilful disobedience. By order dated
04.08.2023 passed in Cont.P.No.642 of 2020, the learned Single Judge held
the appellant guilty of contempt of court and passed orders accordingly.
12. Aggrieved by the said order dated 04.08.2023 passed in
Cont.P.No.642 of 2020, the present contempt appeal has been filed by the
second respondent in the contempt petition, namely Tmt.Narmadha, Special
District Revenue Officer (Land Acquisition), National Highways Project,
Bangalore to Chennai Expressway, Kanchipuram District, challenging the
correctness and legality of the order passed by the learned Single Judge
holding her guilty of contempt.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/02/2026 03:02:31 pm )
13. While entertaining the appeal, a stay was granted by a coordinate
Division Bench of this Court on 08.01.2023. The contempt appeal was
thereafter dismissed as against the second respondent/District Collector in
view of the order dated 25.01.2023 made in Sub. Appln.No.733 of 2020 in
Cont.P.No.642 of 2020, whereby the second respondent had been removed
from the array of parties in the contempt petition. The contempt petition in
Cont.P.No.642 of 2020 had already been dismissed insofar as respondents 3
to 5 / Special Tahsildar (LA), Project Director, Block Development Officer
(B.P.) are concerned by the learned Single Judge. In view of the said
developments, the contempt appeal, by order dated 27.06.2025, came to be
dismissed as against respondents 2 to 5.
14.1. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the
impugned order holding the appellant guilty of civil contempt and imposing
a sentence of one month civil imprisonment is wholly unsustainable both on
facts and in law and is liable to be set aside. It is submitted that the finding
of wilful disobedience has been recorded without properly appreciating the
factual and legal position placed before the learned Judge and without
considering the materials on record in their proper perspective.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/02/2026 03:02:31 pm )
14.2. The learned counsel would submit that the appellant, while
functioning as Special District Revenue Officer (Land Acquisition) in
connection with the National Highways Project, had acted strictly in
accordance with the notifications issued under the National Highways Act,
1956 and on the basis of the revenue records and encumbrance details
obtained from the concerned Sub-Registrar’s office. The acquisition
proceedings were conducted after due publication of notification under
Sections 3A and 3D of the Act and after conducting enquiry by issuing
notice to all persons interested in the lands. Even during such enquiry
proceedings, none of the persons including the writ petitioner had raised any
objection that the lands in question were OSR lands or that they were not
private lands. The notifications and declarations issued under the statute also
reflected the lands only in the names of the registered land owners as per
revenue records and did not refer to any approved layout or OSR
classification. Therefore, the appellant had no occasion to assume that the
lands were anything other than private lands covered by the acquisition
notification.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/02/2026 03:02:31 pm )
14.3. The learned counsel would further submit that the learned Judge
has failed to take into consideration that the layout approval referred to in
the writ proceedings related to Perumbakkam Village and not to Nemili-A or
Ayakolathur villages in respect of which the lands in question were acquired.
The Directorate of Town and Country Planning records themselves would
show that the lands covered by the acquisition notification were not shown
as part of any approved layout and therefore could not have been treated as
OSR lands. In spite of these materials being placed on record, the learned
Judge has proceeded on an erroneous premise and has recorded findings
contrary to the evidence available, thereby rendering the impugned order
perverse.
14.4. The learned counsel would submit that the acquisition was
carried out strictly in accordance with statutory procedure and compensation
was determined and disbursed only to such persons interested as reflected in
the revenue and registration records. The appellant had merely followed the
notifications issued by the competent authorities and the records maintained
by the Sub-Registrar and other officials of the National Highways Authority.
Other officials connected with the acquisition and publication of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/02/2026 03:02:31 pm )
notifications have not been proceeded against, and the appellant alone has
been singled out and held guilty, which is wholly unjustified and contrary to
the materials on record.
14.5. The learned counsel would further submit that under the scheme
of the National Highways Act and the land acquisition process, the appellant
could not have independently disbursed compensation without the approval
and involvement of the District Collector, who had been arrayed as a
respondent in the contempt proceedings. The District Collector, who was the
primary authority, had been exonerated and his name was deleted from the
array of parties after this Court accepted his explanation that he was only
acting as an arbitrator and that stage had not arisen. The reasoning which
weighed with this Court for exonerating the District Collector would equally
apply to the appellant, who was acting only in her official capacity and in
accordance with the statutory notifications and records. Once the primary
authority has been exonerated, fastening liability solely on the appellant is
wholly untenable.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/02/2026 03:02:31 pm )
14.6. The learned counsel would submit that the appellant had acted
bona fide and in discharge of official duties based on statutory notifications,
revenue records and encumbrance certificates obtained from the competent
authorities. The compensation was disbursed only to the persons shown as
land owners and interested persons in the official records. The appellant had
no personal interest in the matter and no motive to disobey the orders of this
Hon’ble Court. The essential ingredient of wilfulness, which is mandatory to
constitute civil contempt, is completely absent in the present case.
14.7. The learned counsel would also submit that the learned Judge
has not taken into consideration that the investigation by the CBCID has not
resulted in filing of any charge sheet and no material has been found to
establish that the lands in question were OSR lands. The criminal
investigation itself cannot be made the basis for holding the appellant guilty
of civil contempt. The amounts disbursed have also been recovered, and
therefore no prejudice has ultimately been caused. In such circumstances,
the finding of wilful disobedience is wholly unwarranted.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/02/2026 03:02:31 pm )
14.8. The learned counsel would further submit that the appellant has
already undergone 19 days of civil imprisonment out of the one month
sentence imposed. The appellant has suffered severe hardship, loss of
reputation and mental agony on account of the incarceration. Even assuming
without admitting that any lapse had occurred, the period already undergone
may be treated as sufficient compliance of the punishment, particularly in
view of the absence of wilful disobedience and the bona fide conduct of the
appellant throughout.
14.9. The learned counsel would therefore submit that the impugned
order has been passed without properly appreciating the factual matrix, the
statutory scheme governing the acquisition, the role of the appellant, the
materials on record and the absence of wilful disobedience. The findings
recorded are contrary to evidence and are perverse, and the punishment
imposed is grossly disproportionate and harsh. The learned counsel would
accordingly pray that this Court may be pleased to allow the appeal, set
aside the order holding the appellant guilty of civil contempt and the
sentence imposed thereunder, and render justice in the facts and
circumstances of the case.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/02/2026 03:02:31 pm )
15. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. There was no
representation on behalf of the respondent.
16. Before considering the submissions made by the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellant, it is necessary to first refer to the
interim order passed by this Court on 10.02.2020 in W.M.P.No.3683 of 2020
in W.P.No.3177 of 2020, which is stated to have not been complied with by
the appellant, thereby resulting in the initiation of contempt proceedings.
"Heard Mr.S.Sathish, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner,
Mr.M.Elumalai, Learned Government Advocate for the First to Third and
Fifth Respondents, Mr.Su.Srinivasan, Learned Counsel for the Fourth
Respondent and Mr.M.Thamizharasan, Learned Additional Government
Pleader for the Sixth and Seventh Respondents and perused the materials
placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties.
2. Notice to the Eighth to Eighteenth Respondents returnable by
01.04.2020. Private notice is also permitted.
3. Since the dispute in the Writ Petition relates to ascertaining who
would be actually entitled to receive the compensation for the OSR land
which has been acquired, it shall be ensured by the First to Fifth
Respondents that after determining the amount of compensation payable
for that acquired land, the same is invested in an interest fetching Fixed
Deposit in any Nationalised Bank in Chennai City in the name of the
Registrar-General of this Court initially for a period of one year and
renewable automatically from time to time, and the original receipt of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/02/2026 03:02:31 pm )
Fixed Deposit shall be handed over to the Registry of this Court under
written acknowledgment, until further orders.
Post the matter on 01.04.2020."
By the abovesaid order, this Court directed the respondents therein
/Government to determine the compensation payable for the acquired lands
and to deposit the same in an interest-bearing fixed deposit in a nationalised
bank in the name of the Registrar General of this Court, until further orders.
The direction was clear that the compensation amount should not be
disbursed to any private individual and should instead be kept in deposit to
safeguard the amount.
17. The directions contained in the interim order are clear and leave
no scope for doubt. The authorities concerned were required to deposit the
compensation amount in a fixed deposit in the name of the Registrar General
of this Court and to hand over the original receipt to the Registry. The
purpose of the order was to ensure that the compensation amount remained
protected and safeguarded until the dispute regarding entitlement was finally
decided by this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/02/2026 03:02:31 pm )
18. It is not in dispute that the appellant was the second respondent in
the writ petition and was working as Special District Revenue Officer (Land
Acquisition) at the relevant time. It is also not in dispute that the interim
order dated 10.02.2020 was communicated to the appellant. In addition to
the official communication of the order, the writ petitioner had also served a
copy of the interim order on the concerned authorities, including the
appellant, informing them about the direction of this Court. Further, the
District Collector, by communication dated 17.02.2020, had also forwarded
the order of this Court to the appellant for necessary action. Despite the
order passed by this Court and its communication both by the writ petitioner
as well as by the District Collector, the appellant proceeded to disburse the
compensation amount to certain private individuals. Once again, the writ
petitioner sent a further representation dated 24.05.2020 and also issued a
legal notice dated 23.06.2020 requesting compliance with the order of this
Court. In spite of these efforts taken by the writ petitioner and the proper
communication made by the District Collector, the appellant failed to act in
accordance with the order passed by this Court, which ultimately resulted in
initiation of contempt proceedings. The above communications and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/02/2026 03:02:31 pm )
sequence of events clearly establish that the appellant had full knowledge of
the interim order in force passed by this Court.
19. The main submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is
that the disbursement was made on the basis of revenue records and that the
interim order was understood to apply only to certain lands. Such a
contention cannot be accepted. Once this Court passed an interim order and
the same was in force, it was the duty of the appellant and the authorities to
strictly comply with the order. If there was any doubt or difficulty in
implementing the order, the proper course was to approach this Court by
filing an appropriate application seeking clarification, modification or
vacating of the interim order.
20. Admittedly, no such application was filed. The interim order
remained in force and binding on the parties. Therefore, the authorities could
not take a decision on their own as to how the order should be interpreted. It
is relevant to note that the compensation disbursed is a very substantial
amount, nearly Rs.20 Crores. Having regard to the magnitude of the amount
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/02/2026 03:02:31 pm )
involved, the submission made by the appellant cannot be accepted as
tenable. When such a huge sum of public money is disbursed, the officer
concerned is expected to exercise greater care and strictly comply with the
orders of this Court. In the present case, despite having full knowledge of the
pending interim order and despite repeated communications from the writ
petitioner as well as the District Collector, the appellant proceeded to
disburse compensation to certain allegedly ineligible persons.
21. The submissions made by the appellant mainly relate to the merits
of the dispute as to whether the lands were OSR lands or private lands.
These issues relate to the writ petition and not to the contempt proceedings.
In contempt proceedings, the only question to be considered is whether the
order of this Court has been violated. The correctness of the order or the
merits of the case cannot be examined in contempt jurisdiction.
22. In the present case, the fact remains that even after the interim
order directing deposit of the compensation amount, the appellant proceeded
to disburse the compensation to private individuals. This action was in clear
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/02/2026 03:02:31 pm )
violation of the order of this Court. The explanation that it was done due to
misunderstanding or on the basis of records cannot be accepted as a valid
reason.
23. The learned Single Judge has considered all the materials and has
come to the conclusion that the appellant had knowledge of the interim order
and had still disbursed the amount. The learned Single Judge therefore held
that the appellant had committed wilful disobedience of the order of this
Court. On a careful reading of the impugned order and the records, we do
not find any error or illegality in the finding of the learned Single Judge.
24. It was also submitted that the amount disbursed has now been
recovered. Subsequent recovery will not erase the violation already
committed. Once an order of this Court has been violated, the contempt is
complete.
25. The learned counsel for the appellant requested that since the
appellant has already undergone 19 days of civil imprisonment out of the
one-month sentence imposed, the same may be treated as sufficient.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/02/2026 03:02:31 pm )
However, considering the nature of the disobedience and the need to
maintain respect for court orders, the sentence imposed by the learned Single
Judge cannot be said to be excessive or unjust.
26. We find that the learned Single Judge has rightly held that the
appellant has committed wilful disobedience of the interim order dated
10.02.2020. There is no reason for this Court to interfere with the order
passed by the learned Single Judge.
27. Accordingly, the Contempt Appeal is dismissed. Since the
appellant has already undergone 19 days of civil imprisonment, she shall
undergo the remaining period of imprisonment as ordered by the learned
Single Judge in Contempt Petition No.642 of 2020, dated 04.08.2023.
[P.V.J.,] [M.J.R.J.,]
23/ 02 / 2026
Speaking Order
Neutral Citation case: Yes
rns
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/02/2026 03:02:31 pm )
P.VELMURUGAN. J.
and
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
rns
Judgment in
23 / 02 / 2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/02/2026 03:02:31 pm )
