Introduction:
The Madras High Court, in J. Abdul Malik and Another v. The District Collector and Others (W.P.(MD) No. 21426 of 2026), emphasised that government officials who provide incorrect or misleading information to government advocates interfere with the administration of justice and may become liable for contempt of court proceedings.
A Division Bench comprising Justice G.R. Swaminathan and Justice B. Pugalendhi made the observation while hearing a writ petition filed by two individuals seeking removal of encroachments allegedly made over a water channel in Tiruchirappalli District. During the hearing, discrepancies emerged between the information provided by the government authorities and the official land records produced before the Court.
The Court observed that government advocates appearing before courts generally rely upon instructions provided by concerned officials. Therefore, furnishing false information to government counsel directly affects the ability of the court to arrive at a correct decision and amounts to interference with the administration of justice.
The matter arose in the context of alleged encroachment over a waterbody. The petitioners claimed that certain lands mentioned in the proceedings were part of a water spread area and sought directions for removal of illegal occupation. The Court was required to examine the status of the disputed lands and the responsibility of revenue authorities in protecting water resources from encroachment.
Arguments of the Parties:
The petitioners contended that illegal encroachments had been made over a water channel and sought directions for their removal by the concerned authorities. They relied upon the entries contained in the “A” Register, which is an official land record maintained by revenue authorities, to establish the nature and classification of the disputed property.
The petitioners submitted that although the government authorities claimed that one of the survey numbers was patta land, the “A” Register clearly reflected that the land was classified as Karanthapadikulam Neerpidipu, meaning a water spread area. According to them, the classification in the official record demonstrated that the property formed part of a waterbody and could not be used for construction or any activity obstructing the natural flow of water.
The Government Advocate appearing for the respondents informed the Court that out of the three survey numbers referred to by the petitioners, two were water bodies while the third was patta land. The State authorities relied upon the information supplied by the revenue officials and submitted that there was no basis to treat the third property as a waterbody.
However, during the course of arguments, the petitioners produced the “A” Register extract showing that the disputed land had been described as a water spread area. The Court noticed that the copy supplied to the Government Advocate did not contain the same remark, raising concerns regarding whether relevant information had been withheld from the government counsel.
Court’s Judgment:
The Madras High Court held that government officials have a serious responsibility to provide accurate and complete information to government advocates appearing before courts. The Bench observed that courts frequently rely upon oral submissions made by government counsel, who in turn depend upon instructions received from departmental officials. Therefore, any false or misleading information supplied by officials directly impacts the judicial process.
The Court stated that providing incorrect information to government counsel is not merely an administrative lapse but an act that interferes with the administration of justice. The Bench observed that such conduct would constitute contempt of court, as it has the effect of misleading the court and obstructing the proper adjudication of disputes.
During the hearing, the Court examined the “A” Register extract produced by the petitioners and found that the remarks column specifically classified the disputed land as Karanthapadikulam Neerpidipu, indicating that it was a water spread area. However, the photocopy provided to the Government Advocate did not contain this crucial entry.
The Bench observed that the omission of the relevant remark from the copy furnished to the Government Advocate appeared to be deliberate and amounted to misleading the Court. Considering the seriousness of the issue, the Court directed the Registrar (Judicial) to communicate with the Tahsildar, Marungapuri Taluk, calling for an explanation regarding the manner in which false information was provided to the Government Advocate. The Court stated that after receiving the explanation, it would consider whether a suo motu contempt proceeding should be initiated.
The Court also clarified the legal position regarding patta lands situated near waterbodies. It observed that even if a property is classified as patta land, the rights of the owner are subject to restrictions where the land affects public resources. A landholder cannot undertake construction or any activity that obstructs the natural flow of water or damages a waterbody.
The Bench emphasised that protection of water channels and water spread areas is a matter of public importance. Encroachments affecting such resources cannot be permitted merely because an individual claims ownership rights. However, authorities must follow due process of law before removing any alleged encroachment by issuing notice and providing an opportunity of hearing to affected persons.
Accordingly, the Court directed the Tahsildar concerned to issue notices to the alleged encroachers and take appropriate action in accordance with law after granting them an opportunity to present their case. The entire exercise was directed to be completed within four months from the date of receipt of the Court’s order.
The judgment serves as a reminder that government officials functioning as a source of information for litigation must maintain absolute accuracy and transparency. The Court highlighted that the justice delivery system depends upon the credibility of submissions made by government representatives, and any attempt to conceal facts or provide false instructions undermines the very foundation of judicial proceedings.
By directing an explanation from the Tahsildar and reserving the question of initiating contempt proceedings, the Madras High Court reinforced that accountability extends not only to litigating parties but also to public officials whose actions directly influence the functioning of courts.