(Prayer: The Contempt Petition is filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, to punish the 3rd and 4th respondent for non-compliance of the order dated 11.08.2017 passed in the Crl.O.P.No.15756 of 2017 on the file of this Hon'ble Court in quashing the criminal compliant bearing C.C.No.3 of 2013 on the file of Land Grabbing Court-II, Periamet, Chennai.)

1. Alleging that the failure to re-convey the lands to the Temple amounts to disobedience of the order passed in Crl.O.P.No.15756 of 2017, dated 11.08.2017, the present Contempt Petition has been filed.

2. In the aforesaid Criminal Original Petition, I had quashed the criminal proceedings in the following manner:-

               “2. Pending proceedings in C.C.No.779 of 2011 on the file of XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, transferred and re- numbered as C.C.No.3 of 2013 on the file of the Land Grabbing Court – II, Periamet, Chennai, the de-facto complainant and the petitioners, who are the accused A2 to A7 have amicable settled the dispute among themselves. The petitioners are the accused A2 to A7. The first accused died on 01.11.2013. The de-facto complainant and the petitioners are personally present before this Court today and have been identified by the first respondent herein and the Joint Memo of Compromise dated 11.08.2017 has also been filed before this Court to the effect that the learned counsel on both the sides have no objection if the proceedings in C.C.No.779 of 2011 renumbered as C.C.No.3 of 2013 on the file of Land Grabbing Court – II, Periamet, Chennai, is quashed.

               3. In view of the same, the Criminal Original Petition stands allowed an the proceedings in C.C.No.779 of 2011 renumbered as C.C.No.3 of 2013 on the file of Land Grabbing Court – II, Periamet, Chennai, is quashed.”

3. The terms of the Compromise Memo recorded above read as follows:-

               (i) The ownership of the land in respect of the property situate at Old No.3, New No.5, Perumal Koil West Mada Street, Saidapet, Chennai – 600 015, land measuring 2265 sq.ft shall vest with Sri Prasanna Venkata Narashima Perumal Temple, Saidapet, Chennai – 600 015.

               (ii) It is agreed that Mrs.Indumathi wife of E.P.Parthasarathy, the 4th petitioner herein is only the owner of lease hold rights of land measuring 2265 sq.ft in Old No.3, New No.5, Perumal Koil West Mada Street, Saidapet, Chennai – 600 015. She shall not claim ownership over the land under any circumstances in future. The aforesaid Mrs.Indumathi is only the owner of the superstructure in the aforesaid temple lands.

               (iii) It is agreed that Mrs. Indumathi wife of E.P.Parthasarathy, the 4th petitioner herein shall pay the land rent to the temple authorities of Sri Prasanna Venkata Narashima Perumal Temple, Saidapet, Chennai- 600 015, regularly. The aforesaid temple is a religious denominational temple belonging to Balija Chetty Community, of Saidapet.

               5. Therefore, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to record the Joint compromise memo and quash the proceedings in C.C.No.779 of 2011 on the file of XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chenai, transferred and renumbered as C.C.No.3 of 2013 on the file of Land Grabbing Court – II, Periamet, Chennai, and thus render justice.

4. The aforesaid terms do not reflect any agreement between the Temple and the respondents herein with regard to reconveyance of the land in favour of the Temple. On the other hand, the terms of settlement only record and affirm the title of the Temple over the subject property in Old No.3, New No.5, Perumal Koil West Mada Street, Saidapet, Chennai – 600 015 and the leasehold rights of Indumathi/ 3rd contemnor herein. The terms also speak about payment of the land rent by Indumathi to the Temple. In the absence of any agreement with regard to reconveyance, I fail to understand as to how the order passed in Crl.O.P.No.15756 of 2017 could be termed as disobedience.

5. Accordingly, the Contempt Petition stands dismissed.