Giving False Information To Government Counsel Constitutes Contempt Of Court: Madras High Court
The Madras High Court was considering a matter where allegations of encroachment were raised.
While observing that any false information given to the Government counsel directly interferes with the administration of justice and constitutes contempt of Court, the Madras High Court has asked the Tahsildar to furnish an explanation regarding the concealment of an entry in the official records pertaining to the classification of certain land.
The High Court was considering a Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a direction to the respondents to initiate appropriate proceedings to remove the encroachments made by the private Respondents in the Sakkiliyankulam channel in a portion of land situated in Ponnampatti Town Panchayat, Trichirappalli District and restore it to its original position.
The Bench comprising Justice G. R. Swaminathan and Justice B. Pugalendhi stated, “It is true that survey No.33/1 is a patta land. But then, in the remarks column, it has been clearly mentioned that it is a water spread area(Neerpidipu) Karandhabeebikulam. However, in the photo copy of “A” Register furnished to the learned Government Advocate, the remarks column 12 is blank. While taking photo copy, this entry appears to have been concealed. This is nothing a short of misleading the Court. We in most of the cases go by the oral submissions made by the Government counsel. The Government counsel, in turn, rely on the instructions given to them by the officials concerned. Any false information given to the Government counsel directly interferes with the administration of justice. It would constitute contempt of Court.”
Advocate R.R. Kannan represented the Petitioner while Government Advocate P. Rajagopalan represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The petitioners are the residents of Thuvarankurichi Village, Marungapurai Taluk, Trichy District. They alleged that the petition-mentioned channel had been blocked and encroached upon and wanted the encroachments to be removed.
The Government Advocate conceded that survey Nos.68 and 69/2 are water bodies and survey No.33/1 is patta land.
Reasoning
Referring to the Register extract, the Bench noted that survey No.33/1 has been classified as Karanthapadikulam Neerpidipu and it is a water spread area. “Such a land can be a patta land also. However, the patta holder’s rights are limited. He cannot put up construction or do anything that may obstruct the free flow of water. Surface runoff cannot be impeded in any manner”, it noted.
Observing that it is the duty of the authorities to ensure that the character of survey No.33/1 water spread area is maintained as such, the Bench stated, “Any encroachment in the petition mentioned water bodies shall be removed by adhering to due process of law. The fourth respondent will issue notice to the concerned encroachers and after giving them an opportunity of hearing, take action as per law”
Allowing the petition, the Bench further ordered that the entire exercise should be completed within four months.
Cause Title: J.Abdul Malik v. The District Collector (Case No.: WP(MD) No. 21426 of 2026)