IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 02-04-2008 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Contempt Petition No.896 of 2004 C.Sethuraman .. Petitioner. Versus 1.Mr.Selvam The Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Adi Dravida and Tribal Welfare Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9. 2.Mt.Gagandeep Singh Bedi The District Collector, Cuddalore District. 3.Mr.Pandurangan The Special Tahsildar Adi Dravidar Welfare (Land Acquisition Officer) Virudhachalam, Cuddalore District. .. Respondents. Prayer: Petition under Section 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 70/71 seeking to punish the respondents in accordance with the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act for disobeying the order of this Hon'ble Court made in W.P.M.P.No.23370 of 2004 in W.P.No.19425 of 2004, dated 12.07.2004. For Petitioner : Mr.Karthik Srinath for M/s.La & Law For Respondents : Mr.S.Gopinathan Additional Government Pleader O R D E R
Heard, Mr.Karthik Srinath, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr.S.Gopinathan, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents.
2. This contempt petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to punish the respondents for contempt of Court for wilfully disobeying the order of this Court, dated 12.07.2004, made in W.P.M.P.No.23370 of 2004 in W.P.No.19425 of 2004.
3. It is stated by the petitioner that he is the owner of the land in S.Nos.94/6A, 94/6B, 94/6E, 94/6F with an extent of 92 cents at Pennadam Village, Thittakudi Taluk, Cuddalore District. The respondents had issued a Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.271, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, dated 08.05.1989, acquiring the said lands of the petitioner. The petitioner had preferred a writ petition before this Court, in W.P.No.19229 of 1990, challenging the land acquisition proceedings. This Court was pleased to grant an order of interim stay of the said Government order. Meanwhile, an award had been passed in Award No.2/91-92, dated 20.07.1991, excluding the petitioners land. Thereafter, the interim stay granted by this Court had been vacated. A separate award had been passed in Award No.6/91-92, dated 30.10.1991, in respect of the petitioner’s land and pattas were granted to 22 persons, as per the land acquisition scheme. Thereafter, it was found that a few persons who were the beneficiaries under the scheme had obtained fraudulent caste certificates. Therefore, the third respondent had conducted an enquiry and had made a recommendation, on 27.10.1999, identifying 17 persons as genuine beneficiaries and cancelled the patta granted in favour of four persons.
3.1 It has been further stated that the petitioner had made a representation for re-conveyance of the land and had also filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.4551 of 2003, to direct the respondent to transfer and re-convey the land acquired from the petitioner. The first respondent had rejected the claim of the petitioner by his proceedings, dated 15.06.2004. The proceedings of the first respondent, dated 15.06.2004, had been challenged before this Court by way of a writ petition in W.P.No.19425 of 2004. This Court had granted an order of interim injunction in W.P.M.P.No.23370 of 2004, by an order, dated 12.07.2004, restraining the respondents from in any way interfering with the petitioner’s possession of the lands belonging to him. In spite of the order being communicated to the respondents, the second and third respondents had proceeded to disturb the peaceful possession of the petitioner in the property in question. In such circumstances, the petitioner had filed the present contempt petition to punish the respondents for committing contempt of Court.
4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the third respondent denying the claims made by the petitioner. Further, an unconditional apology has been tendered, in case, this Court finds that the respondent had committed contempt of Court by his act or omission. Paragraphs 4 to 9 of the counter affidavit reads as follows:
“4. The respondent submits that the request of the petitioner to transfer the land to the original owner u/s.48(B) of the Land Acquisition Act was rejected by the Government in Lr.No.20145/L.A.1/2003, dated 16.06.2004. The contempt petition No.258/2004 filed by the petitioner in W.P.No.4552/03 was closed on 25.06.2004 in the High Court, Chennai. The plots of the 19 beneficiaries who were given House site pattas on 12.01.2004 in the required area were identified to them on 2.7.2004 by the Sub Inspector of Survey in the presence of VAO and Public with intimation to the Police the benefificaries occupied the sites and started construction of huts formed road as per the site plan approved by the District Adi Dravidar Welfare Officer, Cuddalore. Against the occupation of the sites by the beneficiaries the petitioner filed Writ in W.P.No.19425/04 and the present contempt petition.
5. The respondent submits that the acquired lands were under Government possession. The irular community people in the area made representation to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Virudhachalam to provide House site patta for 25 families stating that the site acquired for them is free from court cases. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Virudhachalam in his letter No.A.5/1926/2003, dated 31.03.2003, instructed the Special Tahsildar, (ADW), Virudhachalam to enquire the beneficiaries request and take action to issue House site patta to the eligible families. The Special Tahsildar (ADW), Virudhachalam after detailed enquiry submitted proposals to the District Adi Dravidar Welfare Officer, Cuddalore, in A/56/87, dated 13.05.2003, for sanction of house site for 19 beneficiaries who belongs to Hindu-Irular community and eligible for getting assignment. The District Adi Dravidar Welfare Officer approved the list and plot sketch. The house site pattas for 19 beneficiaries were issued on 09.01.2004. Hence the contention of the petitioner is false.
6. The respondent submits that the sites were identified on 2.7.2004 by the surveyor in the presence of public, Village Administrative Officer, with intimation to the S.I. Of Police, Pennadam. The beneficiaries occupied their site on the same day. Hence, the contention of the petitioner is false. On receipt of Court stay order the status of the area is maintained till date.
7. The respondent submits that the petitioner was given reply by the Special Tahsildar, (ADW), Virudhachalam in A/56/87 dated 10.08.2004 stating that no further action was taken to issue house site pattas in the vacant acquired land as there is High Court stay order. The new list of beneficiaries and request for house site pattas belonging to Irular Community have also been received by the Special Tahsildar, (ADW), Virudhachalam in 57/87, dated 15.09.2004 has stated that further assignment will be made only after disposal of High Court Writ and kept them pending. Hence the contention o the petitioner’s is false.
8. The respondent submits that the land acquisition was made to provide site to Irular Community people who belongs to Special Tribes category. The petitioner filed writ and then appeal in the High Court, Chennai and all were dismissed. Even then the petitioner wanted recovery of the land to him as if the land is not used for house site to the Irulars. The Government rejected the request of the petitioner stating that 22 beneficiaries have already constructed the house in the area. The town panchayat, Pennadam have provided road and land pipe for the Irular people in the required land. The petitioner is a wealthy pattadar. There was no stay order to issue patta in the acquired area at the time of issuance of pattas to the Irulars. Hence the contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted and the respondent has not committed any willful disobedience of the order.
9. The respondent submits that the contention of the petitioner is false. The acquired land is a Government land for providing house site to Irular ST Community. The award was passed on 30.10.1991. The award amount is deposited in Revenue Deposit. After dismissal of appeal filed by the petitioner house site pattas were given to 19 beneficiaries on 12.01.2004. After giving replyby Government on 16.06.2004 to the petitioner the contempt petition No.258/04 was also closed on 25.06.2004, the plots were identified to the beneficiaries only on 2.7.2004 in the presence fo public with intimation to the police. The beneficiaries occupied the site on 2.7.2004. On receipt of the stay order copy on 19.07.2004 no further action was taken and the existing status was maintained. The petitioner has suppressed the fact that already pattas were given and lands were allotted to the beneficiaries prior to 12.07.2004 and has got an order at the admission stage. The respondent were not aware of the petition filed by the petitioner. Since the beneficiaries had constructed the house (huts) and started living there the respondents could not remove the huts. After the receipt of the stay order, no further pattas given to anybody and not allowed to build any structure.”
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that after this Court had passed the interim order, no fresh proceedings had been initiated with regard to the property in question, as stated in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the third respondent. Once the land had been acquired, it is vested with the Government and it is only the Government that is to decide about the issue of reconveying the lands, if found so necessary. However, in the present case, the lands which were acquired from the petitioner had been allotted to the beneficiaries and they have constructed pucca houses in the lands allotted to them. Unless there is a specific order from this Court, the issue of reconveying the lands to the petitioner may not arise.
6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has not refuted the contentions of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the respondents have not committed contempt of Court, as alleged by the petitioner in the contempt petition. Hence, the contempt petition is closed.
Index:Yes/No 02-04-2008
Internet:Yes/no
csh
M.JAICHANDREN,J.
Csh
Contempt Petition No.896 of 2004
02-04-2008