Madras High Court upholds contempt finding for disbursal of compensation despite interim order; appellant to complete one‑month civil imprisonment

A Division Bench of Justice P. Velmurugan and Justice M. Jothiraman heard Contempt Appeal No. 23 of 2023, in which the Special District Revenue Officer (Land Acquisition) for the Bangalore–Chennai Expressway, Kanchipuram, challenged a learned Single Judge’s order that held her guilty of wilful disobedience of an interim direction dated 10 February 2020. The appeal arose from allegations that compensation payable in land‑acquisition proceedings had been disbursed to private individuals contrary to the High Court’s direction to safeguard the amounts pending adjudication of entitlement.

The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Single Judge’s finding that the appellant had violated the interim order. The Bench affirmed that the interim order required determination of compensation and deposit of 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,” and found that the appellant had knowledge of the order yet authorised payments to private parties. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “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.” The Bench further noted that “the directions contained in the interim order are clear and leave no scope for doubt” and that “subsequent recovery will not erase the violation already committed.” The Division Bench therefore held that the sentence of one month civil imprisonment imposed by the Single Judge was not excessive and directed the appellant to undergo the remaining period of imprisonment, the appellant having already served 19 days.

Background The dispute began with W.P. No. 3177 of 2020 filed by R. Rajendran challenging disbursement of compensation in acquisition proceedings undertaken for the Bangalore–Chennai Expressway. The petitioner alleged that certain lands originally earmarked and handed over as Open Space Reservation (OSR) in approved layouts had been wrongly shown as private and compensation had been or was being paid to private persons. On admission, the High Court by order dated 10 February 2020 directed that, after determining compensation, the amounts “shall be invested in an interest fetching Fixed Deposit in any Nationalised Bank in Chennai City in the name of the Registrar‑General of this Court … and the original receipt of the Fixed Deposit shall be handed over to the Registry of this Court under written acknowledgment, until further orders.”

Contempt Petition No. 642 of 2020 was filed alleging that respondents, including the then Special District Revenue Officer (the present appellant), wilfully disbursed compensation after receipt of the interim order. The appellant contended that she acted on revenue and registration records, that the disputed payments related to lands recorded as private in official records, that she had no intention to disobey the Court, and that other officers and statutory processes had been followed. She also pointed to the District Collector’s earlier exoneration and submitted that a CBCID probe produced no charge sheet. The Single Judge rejected these explanations, found wilful disobedience, and sentenced the appellant to one month civil imprisonment.

On appeal the appellant reiterated that payments were bona fide made in accordance with statutory notifications and revenue records and argued disproportionate treatment. The Division Bench emphasised that, where an interim judicial direction was in force, the duty of officials was to comply or seek clarification from the Court; absent any such application, the unilateral interpretation of the order could not excuse compliance. The Bench recorded that nearly Rs. 20 crores had been involved, that communications and legal notices had informed the authorities of the interim order, and that recovery of amounts did not negate the breach. The appeal was dismissed and the remaining term of imprisonment was ordered to be served.

Case Details: Case No.: Contempt Appeal No.23 of 2023 Case Title: Narmadha v. R. Rajendran & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. M. Ramamoorthi, Senior Advocate (for M/s P. Suresh Prabhu) For the Respondent(s): No appearance (R1); R2 to R5 dismissed vide order dated 27.06.2025

23 February 2026.