‘Not excessive, unjust’: Madras High Court upholds jail term of officer for Rs 20 crore NHAI land payout

‘Amount recovered but contempt complete’

• It has been noted that the amount has been recovered. However, subsequent recovery will not erase the violation that has already been committed.
• 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.
• The communication of the interim order to the officer and the sequence of events clearly establish that she had full knowledge of the interim order in force passed by this court.
• The officer did not file any application seeking clarification or modification of the interim order.
• The authorities could not make a decision on their own as to how the order passed by a court should be interpreted.

• It is relevant to note that the compensation disbursed is a very substantial amount, nearly Rs 20 crores and the submission made by the officer cannot be accepted as “tenable”.
• The officer has disbursed compensation to certain allegedly ineligible persons.
• The explanation that it was done due to a misunderstanding or based on records cannot be accepted as a valid reason.
• In contempt proceedings, the only question to be considered is whether the order of this court has been violated, and the correctness of the order or the merits of the case cannot be examined in a contempt case.
• There is no error or illegality in the finding of the single judge’s order.
• Once an order of this court has been violated, the contempt is complete.
• Considering the nature of the disobedience and the need to maintain respect for court orders, the sentence imposed by the single judge cannot be said to be excessive or unjust.
• Since the officer has already undergone 19 days of jail, she should undergo the remaining period of imprisonment.

‘Interim order, no obedience’

• The high court, in its interim order, passed in February 2020, directed the 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 a deposit to safeguard the amount.
• The land officer was required to deposit the compensation amount in a fixed deposit 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 the court.
• The district collector, by communication in February 2020, had also forwarded the interim order to the officer for necessary action.
• Despite the order passed and its communication, she proceeded to disburse the compensation amount to certain private individuals.
• A legal notice was issued by the authority concerned seeking her representation, but she still failed to act in compliance with the interim order passed by the court, which ultimately resulted in the initiation of contempt proceedings.

‘Money recovered, no motive to disobey’

• Appearing for the officer, advocate M Ramamoorthi submitted that his client had no personal interest in the matter and no motive to disobey the orders of this court.
• He also emphasised that the essential ingredient of wilfulness, which is mandatory to constitute civil contempt, is completely absent in the present case.
• She had already undergone 19 days of jail out of the one-month sentence imposed.
• She had suffered severe hardship, loss of reputation and mental agony on account of the incarceration.
• It was also submitted that the amounts disbursed have also been recovered, and therefore, no prejudice has ultimately been caused.
• Considering the bona fide conduct of Narmadha, the period already undergone may be treated as sufficient compliance with the punishment.
• He contended that the order holding his client guilty of civil contempt and imposing a sentence of one month in jail is unsustainable and should be set aside.
• It is submitted that the single judge passed the said order without properly analysing the case and the legal position of the evidence placed on record.
• It was emphasised that Narmadha, as a special district revenue officer related to the national highways project, had acted strictly as per the notifications issued under the National Highways Act, 1956 and based on the revenue records and encumbrance details obtained from the sub-registrar’s office.
• It was also submitted that the acquisition was carried out strictly as per the statutory procedure, and compensation was determined and disbursed only to such persons interested as reflected in the revenue and registration records.
• Narmadha 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.
• No other officials connected with the acquisition and publication of the notifications have been proceeded against, and Narmadha alone has been singled out and held guilty, which is wholly unjustified and contrary to the evidence placed on record.
• She could not have independently disbursed compensation without the approval and involvement of the district collector, who 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.
• If the primary authority has been exonerated, imposing liability solely on the land officer is untenable.

There were no representations from the authority concerned’s end.