C.Sethuraman v. Selvam The Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Adi Dravida and Tribal Welfare Department

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS(CONTEMPT JURISDICTION)WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2008 THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDRENCONTEMPT PETITION NO.896 OF 2004ANDSUB APPLICATION NO.332 OF 2004 ************C.Sethuraman,No.54,North Vellalar Street,Pennadam,Cuddalore District – 606 105. ... PetitionerVs1.Selvam The Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Adi Dravida and Tribal Welfare Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9.2.Gagandeep Singh Bedi The District Collector, Cuddalore District.3.Pandurangan The Special Tahsildar Adi Dravidar Welfare (Land Acquisition Officer) Virudhachalam, Cuddalore District. .. RespondentsContempt Petition praying that this Court be pleasedto punish the respondent in accordance with the provisionsof Contempt of Courts Act for disobeying the the order ofthis Hon'ble Court dated 12/07/2004 and made inW.P.No.19425 of 2004 in W.P.M.P.No.23370 of 2004. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2Sub Application praying that this Court be pleased togrant ad-interim injunction restraining the respondents orhis men or agents or others from interfering with thepeaceful possession or making any construction in thepetitioner's land in Survey Nos.94/6A, 94/6B, 94/6E, 94/6Fadmeasuring 92 cents at Pennadam Village, Thittakudi Taluk,Cuddalore District, pending disposal of the above contemptpetition.The above Contempt Petition and Sub Applicationcoming on this day before this Court for hearing inthe presence of Mr.Karthik Srinath, Advocate forM/s.La & Law, Advocate for the petitioner in bothpetitions; and of Mr.S.Gopinathan, Additional GovernmentPleader for the respondents in both petitions; and uponreading the petition and affidavit of C.Sethuraman,filed in Contempt Petition No.896 of 2004; and the petitionand affidavit of C.Sethuraman, filed in Sub ApplicationNo.332 of 2008; and the Counter Affidavit of J.Devadhas,filed herein; the Court made the following order:-Heard, Mr.Karthik Srinath, the learned counselappearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr.S.Gopinathan,the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing onbehalf of the respondents. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

32.This contempt petition has been filed praying thatthis Court may be pleased to punish the respondents forcontempt of Court for wilfully disobeying the order of thisCourt, dated 12.07.2004, made in W.P.M.P.No.23370 of 2004in W.P.No.19425 of 2004. 3.It is stated by the petitioner that he is the ownerof the land in S.Nos.94/6A, 94/6B, 94/6E, 94/6F with anextent of 92 cents at Pennadam Village, Thittakudi Taluk,Cuddalore District. The respondents had issued a GovernmentOrder in G.O.Ms.No.271, Adi Dravidar and Tribal WelfareDepartment, dated 08.05.1989, acquiring the said lands ofthe petitioner. The petitioner had preferred a writpetition before this Court, in W.P.No.19229 of 1990,challenging the land acquisition proceedings. This Courtwas pleased to grant an order of interim stay of the saidGovernment order. Meanwhile, an award had been passed inAward No.2/91-92, dated 20.07.1991, excluding thepetitioners land. Thereafter, the interim stay granted bythis Court had been vacated. A separate award had beenpassed in Award No.6/91-92, dated 30.10.1991, in respect ofthe petitioner's land and pattas were granted to 22persons, as per the land acquisition scheme. Thereafter, itwas found that a few persons who were the beneficiariesunder the scheme had obtained fraudulent castecertificates. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4Therefore, the third respondent had conducted an enquiryand had made a recommendation, on 27.10.1999, identifying17 persons as genuine beneficiaries and cancelled the pattagranted in favour of four persons. 3.1 It has been further stated that the petitioner hadmade a representation for re-conveyance of the land and hadalso filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.4551of 2003, to direct the respondent to transfer and re-conveythe land acquired from the petitioner. The first respondenthad rejected the claim of the petitioner by hisproceedings, dated 15.06.2004. The proceedings of the firstrespondent, dated 15.06.2004, had been challenged beforethis Court by way of a writ petition in W.P.No.19425 of2004. This Court had granted an order of interim injunctionin W.P.M.P.No.23370 of 2004, by an order, dated 12.07.2004,restraining the respondents from in any way interferingwith the petitioner's possession of the lands belonging tohim. In spite of the order being communicated to therespondents, the second and third respondents had proceededto disturb the peaceful possession of the petitioner in theproperty in question. In such circumstances, the petitionerhad filed the present contempt petition to punish therespondents for committing contempt of Court. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

54.A counter affidavit has been filed by the thirdrespondent denying the claims made by the petitioner.Further, an unconditional apology has been tendered, incase, this Court finds that the respondent had committedcontempt of Court by his act or omission. Paragraphs 4 to 9of the counter affidavit reads as follows:"4.The respondent submits that the requestof the petitioner to transfer the land to theoriginal owner u/s.48(B) of the Land AcquisitionAct was rejected by the Government inLr.No.20145/L.A.1/2003, dated 16.06.2004. Thecontempt petition No.258/2004 filed by thepetitioner in W.P.No.4552/03 was closed on25.06.2004 in the High Court, Chennai. The plotsof the 19 beneficiaries who were given House sitepattas on 12.01.2004 in the required area wereidentified to them on 2.7.2004 by the SubInspector of Survey in the presence of VAO andPublic with intimation to the Police thebenefificaries occupied the sites and startedconstruction of huts formed road as per the siteplan approved by the District Adi DravidarWelfare Officer, Cuddalore. Against theoccupation of the sites by the beneficiaries thepetitioner filed Writ in W.P.No.19425/04 and thepresent contempt petition. 5.The respondent submits that the acquiredlands were under Government possession. Theirular community people in the area maderepresentation to the Revenue Divisional Officer,Virudhachalam to provide House site patta for 25families stating that the site acquired for themis free from court cases. The https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6Revenue Divisional Officer, Virudhachalam in hisletter No.A.5/1926/2003, dated 31.03.2003,instructed the Special Tahsildar, (ADW),Virudhachalam to enquire the beneficiariesrequest and take action to issue House site pattato the eligible families. The Special Tahsildar(ADW), Virudhachalam after detailed enquirysubmitted proposals to the District Adi DravidarWelfare Officer, Cuddalore, in A/56/87, dated13.05.2003, for sanction of house site for 19beneficiaries who belongs to Hindu-Irularcommunity and eligible for getting assignment.The District Adi Dravidar Welfare Officerapproved the list and plot sketch. The house sitepattas for 19 beneficiaries were issued on09.01.2004. Hence the contention of thepetitioner is false. 6.The respondent submits that the sites wereidentified on 2.7.2004 by the surveyor in thepresence of public, Village AdministrativeOfficer, with intimation to the S.I. Of Police,Pennadam. The beneficiaries occupied their siteon the same day. Hence, the contention of thepetitioner is false. On receipt of Court stayorder the status of the area is maintained tilldate. 7.The respondent submits that the petitionerwas given reply by the Special Tahsildar, (ADW),Virudhachalam in A/56/87 dated 10.08.2004 statingthat no further action was taken to issue housesite pattas in the vacant acquired land as thereis High Court stay order. The new list ofbeneficiaries and request for house site pattasbelonging to Irular Community have also beenreceived by the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 7Special Tahsildar, (ADW), Virudhachalam in 57/87,dated 15.09.2004 has stated that furtherassignment will be made only after disposal ofHigh Court Writ and kept them pending. Hence thecontention of the petitioner's is false.8.The respondent submits that the landacquisition was made to provide site to IrularCommunity people who belongs to Special Tribescategory. The petitioner filed writ and thenappeal in the High Court, Chennai and all weredismissed. Even then the petitioner wantedrecovery of the land to him as if the land is notused for house site to the Irulars. TheGovernment rejected the request of the petitionerstating that 22 beneficiaries have alreadyconstructed the house in the area. The townpanchayat, Pennadam have provided road and landpipe for the Irular people in the required land.The petitioner is a wealthy pattadar. There wasno stay order to issue patta in the acquired areaat the time of issuance of pattas to the Irulars.Hence the contention of the petitioner cannot beaccepted and the respondent has not committed anywillful disobedience of the order. 9.The respondent submits that the contentionof the petitioner is false. The acquired land isa Government land for providing house site toIrular ST Community. The award was passed on30.10.1991. The award amount is deposited inRevenue Deposit. After dismissal of appeal filedby the petitioner house site pattas were given to19 beneficiaries on 12.01.2004. After givingreplyby Government on 16.06.2004 to the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 8petitioner the contempt petition No.258/04 wasalso closed on 25.06.2004, the plots wereidentified to the beneficiaries only on 2.7.2004in the presence fo public with intimation to thepolice. The beneficiaries occupied the site on2.7.2004. On receipt of the stay order copy on19.07.2004 no further action was taken and theexisting status was maintained. The petitionerhas suppressed the fact that already pattas weregiven and lands were allotted to thebeneficiaries prior to 12.07.2004 and has got anorder at the admission stage. The respondent werenot aware of the petition filed by thepetitioner. Since the beneficiaries hadconstructed the house (huts) and started livingthere the respondents could not remove the huts.After the receipt of the stay order, no furtherpattas given to anybody and not allowed to buildany structure." 5.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of therespondents had submitted that after this Court had passedthe interim order, no fresh proceedings had been initiatedwith regard to the property in question, as stated in thecounter affidavit filed on behalf of the third respondent.Once the land had been acquired, it is vested with theGovernment and it is only the Government that is to decideabout the issue of reconveying the lands, if found sonecessary. However, in the present case, the lands whichwere acquired from the petitioner https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 9had been allotted to the beneficiaries and they haveconstructed pucca houses in the lands allotted to them.Unless there is a specific order from this Court, the issueof reconveying the lands to the petitioner may not arise. 6.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of thepetitioner has not refuted the contentions of the learnedcounsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. In suchcircumstances, this Court is of the considered view thatthe respondents have not committed contempt of Court, asalleged by the petitioner in the contempt petition. Hence,the contempt petition is closed. Consequently, SubApplication No.332 of 2004 is also closed. Witness the Hon'ble Thiru ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, theChief Justice of High Court at Madras, as aforesaid, thisthe 2nd day of April, 2008. SD/-DEPUTY REGISTRAR (OS)//Certified to be true copy//Dated at Madras this the day of 2008.COURT OFFICER(O.S.)From 25th Day of September 2008 the Registry is issuingcertified copies of the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in thisformat. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 10Cns.CONTEMPT PETITION No.896/2004 AND SUB APPLICATION NO.332/2004THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICEM.JAICHANDREN ORDERDATED : 02/04/2008FOR APPROVAL :02/02/2009APPROVED ON :03/02/2009