Janakiammal Charitable Trust v. Pankaj Kumar Banshal & Ors.

1IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS(CONTEMPT JURISDICTION)WEDNESDAY, THE 16th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2009THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDRENCONTEMPT PETITION No.209 of 2006************Janakiammal Charitable Trust, represented by its Founder K.Seenivasagam, Velappan Chavadi, Chennai-77. ...PetitionerVs1)Pankaj Kumar Banshal, The District Collector, Tiruvallur District. 2)Sujee Thomas, The Sub-Collector, Tiruvallur District. ... RespondentsContempt Petition praying that this Court be pleased to punish the respondents for violating the order of this Hon'ble Court in Order dated 20/01/2006 and made inW.P.M.P.No.1355 of 2006 in W.P.No.1208 of 2006. The above Contempt Petition coming on this day before this Court for hearing in the presence ofMr.V.Raghavachari, Advocate for the petitioner herein; and of Mr.R.Murali, Government Advocate for the respondents herein; and upon reading the petition and affidavit of Seenivasagam, filed herein; and the counter affidavit of Pankaj Kumar Bansal, filed herein; the Court made the following order:-This contempt Petition has been filed praying that https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2this Court may be pleased to punish the respondents for violating the order of this Court, dated 20.01.2006, made in W.P.M.P.No.1355 of 2006, in W.P.No.1208 of 2006.

The petitioner has stated that he had filed a writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Mandamus, not to interfere with the petitioner's possession, in respect of the property, situate at New Sy.1, Old Sy.No.84 of Noombal Velapanchavadi Village, Ambattur Taluk, TiruvallurDistrict.

The petitioner has stated that the property had been purchased by the petitioner, under a registered sale deed, from three persons, namely, Sarojini Ammal, Maheswariand Mekala. Since then the petitioner has been in possession of the said property. The revenue records, including the patta, is also in the name of the petitioner. Further, the petitioner had raised a superstructure in the said property, wherein, the petitioner Trust is having its office. The main object of the Trust is to promote education, establish homes for the aged, orphans and other deserving people and to take care of the physically handicapped and disabled persons. Further, a ladies hostelis also situtated in the said property. The property is assessed to tax, which is being paid by the petitioner. While so, the first respondent had started demolishing the structures in the property in question stating that it was https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3necessary to remove the obstructions for the free flow of water.

In such circumstances, the petitioner had preferred the writ petition before this Court, in W.P.No.1208 of2006. This Court had also granted an order of interim injunction restraining the respondents and their men, agents, servants and subordinates from interfering with the possession of the petitioner, in respect of the property, situate at New Sy.1, Old Sy.No.84 of Noombal VelapanchavadiVillage, Ambattur Taluk, Tiruvallur District, pending disposal of the writ petition.

The petitioner has further stated that the said interim order had been passed by this Court in the presence of the Government Pleader and that it is also understood that the said order had been served on the respondents. While so, a notice had been served on the petitioner by the Revenue Inspector, Vanagaram, on 17.01.2006, calling upon the petitioner to appear before him on the same day. Sincethe notice had been served on the petitioner, at about 5.30p.m, he had pointed out that it may not be possible to comply with the directions contained in the said order. Thepetitioner was under the impression that a fresh notice would be issued to him and an enquiry would be conducted thereafter. However, the second respondent, without giving an opportunity of being heard, had cancelled the patta of the petitioner. Knowing about the cancellation of patta the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4petitioner had filed an appeal before the District RevenueOfficer, Tiruvallur District and it is pending on his file.

Thereafter, in the guise of conducting an enquiry, the revenue officials, along with the police officers, had come to the office of the petitioner, on 11.2.2006 and12.2.2006, to inform the petitioner that the structures in the property in question would be demolished. Even thoughthe petitioner had informed the respondents about thependency of the writ petition and the interim order of injunction passed by this Court, on 20.1.2006, the respondents, especially, the second respondent, had directed the officials concerned to proceed with the demolition. Since the respondents had wilfully disobeyed the order passed by this Court, on 20.1.2006, they areliable to be punished for contempt of Court.

In the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent it has been stated that he had not wilfully disobeyed the order passed this Court, on 20.1.2006. Incase, this Court for some reason, comes to the conclusion that he had committed contempt of Court he tenders his unconditional apology for the inadvertent act. 8. It has been further stated that during the hearing of a writ petition, in W.P.No.39759 of 2005, filed byM.G.R.Engineering College, this Court had questioned the respondents, with regard to the eviction proceedings https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5initiated, for the eviction of the encroachments, in coovamriver, since there was heavy inundation during the northeast monsoon, in the year 2005. An undertaking had been given by the Tiruvallur District administration before this Court for ensuring eviction of all the encroachments in Coovam river. Accordingly, the encroachments in Coovamriver, in Maduravoyal, Nerkundram, Mugappair and other villages, were evicted during the month of December, 2005.During the course of the eviction of encroachments in Noombal Village, some residents of Shanmugam Nagar, Janakiammal Charitable Trust and Udavum Karangal had shown various documents to the Sub Collector, Ponneri, claiming that S.No.1 of Noombal Village, is their patta land. Theclaims of the encroachers in S.No.1 were enquired into, in detail, by the Sub Collector, Ponneri, by giving them areasonable opportunity.

During the enquiry and verification of the recordsit was found that S.No.1 of Noombal village was originally classified as coovam river and the settlement, in respect of S.No.1 of the Noombal village, had not been finalised. There were discrepancies in the classification, extent andother aspects, in the relevant records. Various bogus and false documents, such as pattas and sale deeds, were produced by the encroachers during the enquiry. Aftercareful examination of all the relevant records and the claims made by the encroachers, the Sub Collector, Ponneri, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6had passed orders cancelling the pattas issued in S.No.1 of Coovam river, vide proceedings Rc.9760/05/A1, dated5.1.2006. A copy of the said order had also been served on the petitioner Trust, on 17.1.2006. Against the said order the petitioner Trust had filed an appeal before the District Revenue Officer, Tiruvallur and it is still pending. Since the pattas, in respect of S.No.1 of NoombalVillage, had been cancelled and restoration of S.No.1, as Coovam river, had been made by the Sub Collector, the encroachments were considered highly objectionable and steps were taken to evict the encroachers through the P.W.Dauthorities. A notice, under Section 7 of Tamil Nadu LandEncroachment Act, 1905, was served on the petitioner Trustpersonally, on 17.1.2006, granting seven days time to showcause as to why the encroachments should not be evicted. The seven days period had expired, on 23.1.2006. A notice, under Section 6 of the Act, had been issued, on 24.1.2006,giving seven days time to the petitioner Trust to remove the structures put up by it in S.No.1. Since the petitionerTrust had failed to remove the structures the encroachments were removed, on 11.2.2006, by following the due process of law, as ordered by this Court, in its order, dated20.1.2006, in W.P.M.P.No.1355 of 2006, in W.P.No.1208 of2006. In such circumstances, the respondents have not committed contempt of Court, as alleged by the petitioner.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 7petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents.

In view of the contentions raised by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned andon a perusal of the records available before this Court, itis seen that this Court had passed an interim order of injunction restraining the respondents, their men, agents, servants and subordinates from interfering with the possession of the petitioner, in respect of the property situate at New Sy.1, Old Sy.No.84 of Noombal VelapanchavadiVillage, Ambattur Taluk, Tiruvallur District, on 20.1.2006,in W.P.M.P.No.1355 of 2006, in W.P.No.1208 of 2006. It is further seen that this Court, while granting the order of interim injunction, had also observed that the said ordershall not stand in the way of the respondents from proceeding with the eviction of the petitioner from the said property, by following the due process of law.

From the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent it is clear that the respondents had duly followed the procedures provided under the Tamil Nadu LandEncroachment Act, 1905, by issuing the notices, under Sections 6 and 7 of the Act and by giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard, during the enquiry. As such, the petitioner has not been in a position to show that the respondents, their men, agents and subordinates had acted contrary to the order passed by this Court, on 20.1.2006, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 8nor has it been shown that the respondents had wilfully disobeyed the interim order passed by this Court. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the contempt petition is devoid of merits. Hence, it stands closed. No costs. Witness the Hon'ble Thiru HEMANT LAXMAN GOKHALE, the Chief Justice of High Court at Madras, as aforesaid, thisthe 16th day of September, 2009.Sd/-DEPUTY REGISTRAR (OS)//Certified to be true copy//Dated at Madras this the day of 2010.COURT OFFICER(O.S.)From 25th Day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this format. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 9 SMV+CONTEMPT PETITION No.209/2006 THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDRENORDERDATED : 16/09/2009FOR APPROVAL :06/01/2010APPROVED ON :06/01/2010