Madras High Court
Gowri Shanmugasundaram (Deceased) vs Mr.Atulya Mishra I.A.S on 16 July, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 MAD 753, (2019) 6 MAD LJ 709
Author: T.S.Sivagnanam
Bench: T.S.Sivagnanam, V.Bhavani Subbaroyan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 16.07.2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
Date of Reserving the Date of Pronouncing the
Judgment Judgment
18.06.2019 16.07.2019
Contempt Petition No.538 of 2019
and
Sub Application (OS) No.180 of 2019
&
W.M.P.No.36860 of 2018 in W.P.No.7871 of 2007
Gowri Shanmugasundaram (Deceased)
S.Senthil Nathan (Deceased),
Sengamalam .. Petitioner
-vs-
1.Mr.Atulya Mishra I.A.S.,
The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep., by the Commissioner &
Secretary to Government,
Revenue Department,
Fort St., George, Chennai-600009.
2.Mr.Bhuvaraghavan,
The Assistant Commissioner,
Urban Land Ceiling & Urban Land Tax,
Egmore, Chennai – 600008.
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
3.Mr.P.K.Vairamuthu,
The Chairman and Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
No.493, Anna Salai, Nandanam,
Chennai – 600 0035.
4.Mr.S.Krishnan, I.A.S.,
The Principal Secretary to Government,
Housing & Urban Development Department,
Secretariate, Chennai -600 009. .. Respondents
4th respondent impleaded in obedience to the order of this Hon'ble
Court made in Sub-Application No.162 of 2019 in Cont.P.No.538 of
2019
PETITION under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
to punish the respondents for having committed Contempt of Court in
not complying the orders of the Court dated 14.10.2015 in
W.P.No.7871 of 2007.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Ramesh
For Respondents : Mr.P.H.Aravind Pandian AAG for RR1&2
Mr.M.Baskar for TNHB
******
ORDER
T.S.Sivagnanam, J.
This Contempt Petition has been filed alleging wilful disobedience of the order and direction dated 14.10.2015 in W.P.No.7871 of 2007.
2. The said Writ Petition was filed by the petitioner herein for http://www.judis.nic.in 3 issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Urban Land Ceiling, Chennai in proceedings bearing No.A3/4878/79 and notification No.VI(1) 743/82, dated 02.07.1982, published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, dated 14.07.1982 and the consequential notification, dated 29.08.1982 published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, dated 11.08.1982, as confirmed by the order passed by the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Special Appellate Tribunal in T.R.P.No.376 of 1999, dated 17.09.2001. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to pay adequate compensation for the lands acquired from them which according to the petitioner was an illegal acquisition. The Writ Petition was withdrawn with directions issued by the Division Bench by order dated 14.10.2015. The endorsement made by the petitioner seeking withdrawal of the Writ Petition is to the following effect:-
“The Writ Petition is withdrawn in view of the direction of this Court to the Government to consider a release of 6 grounds and 1750sq ft lands acquired under Land Acquisition Act and also in view of the order of the Housing Board dated 22.07.2011 being quashed.
However liberty to reopen the Writ Petition, if the Housing Board declines the request ” http://www.judis.nic.in 4
3. The above endorsement was signed by the petitioner Ms.S.Sengamalam on 14.10.2015 and the signature attested by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the same date. The Division Bench while disposing of the Writ Petition by order dated 14.10.2015, in paragraphs 8 & 9 therein issued to the following directions:-
8. In view of the aforesaid agreement, the following order is passed:-
(1)The present writ petition stands withdrawn. (2)The order passed by the Chairman and Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board in Letter No.LA1(3)/58173/2003, dated 22.07.2011 stands quashed. (3)Fresh orders will be passed by the competent authority of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board after hearing the parties within a period of eight 8 months from the date of receipt of the order, strictly taking into consideration the observations made by the Division Bench in W.A.389 of 2006 dated 10.07.2009, including the affirmation of what was opined by the learned Single Judge.
(4)The amount deposited towards the
compensation in respect of the share of the
petitioners along with the accrued interest thereon should be released to the petitioners within one month from today, which is alleged to have been adjusted towards the dues under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax Act, 1966 since the said adjustment http://www.judis.nic.in 5 in law would not be sustainable.
9. The writ petition, accordingly, stands disposed of. No costs.
4. The Division Bench by the said order, quashed the order passed by the Housing Board, dated 22.07.2011. By this order, the Chairman and Managing Director of the Housing Board informed the petitioner that her request to reconvey the land in survey No.145/1, 6, 7 to an extent of 6 grounds and 1750 sq ft., is rejected. The Division Bench directed the competent authority of the Housing Board to pass fresh orders after hearing the parties, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order strictly taking into consideration the observations made by the Division Bench in W.A.No.389 of 2006, dated 10.07.2009, including the affirmation of what was opined by the learned Single Judge. W.A.No.389 of 2006, was filed by the petitioner challenging the order passed in W.P.No.35066 of 2002, which was for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the proceedings of the Government of Tamil Nadu Housing and Urban Development Department dated 29.07.2002 and for consequential direction to delete or re-convey the subject lands by invoking Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act. The http://www.judis.nic.in 6 Writ Appeal was allowed by judgment dated 10.07.2009, with a direction to the petitioner to submit a representation and the Housing Board was directed to dispose of the representation taking into account the earlier orders, in particular the order passed in W.P.No.22006 of 2000. The said Writ Petition No.22006 of 2000, was filed by the petitioner to quash the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the Government of Tamil Nadu Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 23.11.2000 and to delete the petitioner's land from the clutches of the acquisition proceedings. The Writ Petition was disposed of by order dated 19.11.2001 taking note of the report of the Special Deputy Collector, Tamil Nadu Housing Board Scheme, dated 24.12.1998, who had recommended the withdrawal of the acquisition proceedings under Section 48 of the Act pursuant to an inspection conducted by him. The order impugned in the Writ Petition was set aside and the petitioner was permitted to approach the Government again under Section 48B of the Act, as possession of the land had been taken over by the Government and the Government was directed to consider the petition under Section 48 of the Act on merits taking into consideration the facts discussed in the order and the report of Special Deputy Collector. A time limit of three months was fixed to the Housing Board to pass orders and in the mean time, the Housing http://www.judis.nic.in 7 Board was directed not to deal with the land in question. This direction was not complied with in the proper perspective and the request was rejected, which was challenged by the petitioner by filing W.P.No.35006 of 2002, which was dismissed against which the petitioner preferred W.A.No.389 of 2006, which was allowed with the aforementioned direction. While these orders were being passed, Writ Petition filed by the petitioner in W.P.No.7871 of 2007, challenging the urban land ceiling proceedings was pending. The said Writ Petition was heard by the Division Bench to which one of us was a party (TSSJ) in 2015. By then an order was passed by the Housing Board, dated 22.07.2011, purported to be in compliance with the direction in W.A.No.389 of 2006 and request of the petitioner was rejected. This was brought to the notice of the Division Bench during the course of hearing of W.P.No.7871 of 2007.
5. Mr.V.Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that when the Division Bench heard W.P.No.7871 of 2007, on several dates, suggestion fell from the Court as to whether a quietus can be given to the matter and for such suggestion, the petitioner who was present in Court was agreeable, provided the lands measuring an extent of 6 grounds and 1750 sq.ft., is given to the http://www.judis.nic.in 8 petitioner by considering the direction issued by the Division Bench in W.A.No.389 of 2006, dated 10.07.2009. Owing to this position, the petitioner made an endorsement agreeing to withdraw the Writ Petition in view of the direction of this Court to the Government to consider release of the lands in question and also in view of the order of the Housing Board, dated 22.07.2007, being quashed. It is submitted that even while withdrawing the Writ Petition, the petitioner reserved liberty to reopen the Writ Petition, if the Housing Board declines the request. Therefore, it is the submission of the learned counsel that the Housing Board did not take any action inspite of the petitioner's representations dated 04.11.2015 and 03.05.2016, and did not adhere to the time limit fixed by the Division Bench. By letter dated 17.05.2016, the Housing Board informed the petitioner stating that it is the Government which is alone competent to take a decision in a request made under Section 48B of the Act and therefore, proposal has been forwarded to the Government. After the petitioner received the communication, she filed W.M.P.No.19853 of 2016, to modify the order passed in the Writ Petition, dated 14.10.2015, to direct the Government to pass orders on the petition filed under Section 48B of the Act instead of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, in the light of the stand taken by the Housing Board in their letter dated 17.05.2016. http://www.judis.nic.in 9 This petition for modification was allowed by order dated 22.09.2016 and the time for compliance was extended upto 15.12.2016. The petitioner waited nearly for a month as nothing turned out, sent a legal notice on 18.10.2016 enclosing all relevant documents and copies of the orders of this Court. This was followed by representation given by the petitioner on 09.03.2017 to the Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu and followed by representations dated 02.05.2017, 04.08.2017, 06.11.2017 and another notice through the counsel on 06.11.2017. Inspite of all these representations, no order was passed in compliance of the direction issued by the Division Bench. The petitioner received a copy of a communication sent by the Additional Personal Assistant to the Collector of Chennai to the Special Tahsildar (LA), TNHB, dated 30.11.2017, forwarding the letter of the Government, dated 06.10.2017 and the letter from the Commissioner of Land Administration, dated 09.11.2017. Subsequently, the petitioner submitted representations dated 11.12.2017, 06.06.2018, 25.08.2018, 27.08.2018 and 31.10.2018.
6. To be noted that during the pendency of all these proceedings, the petitioner lost her father Shanmugasundaram on 19.12.1990, leaving behind the petitioner, her mother and brother. The petitioner's http://www.judis.nic.in 10 brother passed away on 30.06.2013, and her mother on 26.01.2015 and the petitioner who is a spinster is the sole person, who is left behind. In the given facts, the petitioner filed WMP.No.36860 of 2018, to reopen the writ petition and this petition was closed by order dated 13.02.2019, giving liberty to the petitioner to file contempt petition. The said order reads as follows:-
Heard Mr.V.Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. V.Anantha moorthy, learned Additional Government Pleader.
2. This Petition has been filed to re-open the writ petition in W.P.No.7871 of 2007 which was disposed on 14.10.2015 so as to enable the Court to hear the writ petition on merits and take a decision. The writ petition was filed challenging the notification issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Urban Land Ceiling and Urban Land Tax, Chennai dated 02.07.1982 published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 14.07.1982 and the second notification dated 14.07.1982 and the consequent notification dated 29.08.1982 published in the Government Gazette on 11.08.1982 as confirmed by the order passed by the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Special Appellate Tribunal, in T.R.P.No.376 of 1999 dated 17.09.2001 and for a further direction to the respondents to pay adequate compensation for the land illegally acquired.
3. One of us (TSSJ) was part of the Division Bench, which heard the writ petition and on 14.10.2015, after elaborately hearing the submissions of the counsels for the http://www.judis.nic.in 11 parties including the learned Additional Advocate General, the following order was passed...........
4. A perusal of the above order clearly shows that it was an order passed on consensus. The writ petitioner and the respondents agreed for the directions that may be issued by the Division Bench. In terms of the directions contained in paragraph 8 of the above order, fresh orders has to be passed by the competent authority of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Strictly taking into consideration, the observation made by the Division Bench in W.A.No.389 of 2006 dated 10.07.2009 including the affirmation of what was opined by the learned Single Judge, infact, in the said order in paragraph 4, the operative portion of the judgement in W.A.No.389 of 2006 dated 10.07.2009 was quoted as herein below:
“The petitioners are entitled to the consideration of their case under Section 48B of the Act and to merely observe that their lands are required for the scheme will not suffice. Therefore, the writ appeal is allowed on the ground that the decision followed by the learned single Judge for dismissing the writ petition has been overruled and we direct the petitioners to make their representation by setting out the facts. The second respondent is directed to dispose of the representation taking into account the earlier orders, in particular, the order passed in W.P.No.22006 of 2000, within a period of six weeks http://www.judis.nic.in 12 from the date of receipt of representation of the petitioners. No costs.”
5. The competent authority of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board appears to have taken a stand that he has no jurisdiction to take a decision in terms of the directions issued by the Division Bench as communicated to the petitioner vide a letter dated 17.05.2016. In the said communication, the Managing Director of Tamil Nadu Housing Board referred to Section 48B of the Land Acquisition Act and stated that power is vested only with the Government. However, when the Division Bench passed the above referred order no such stand was taken by the Managing Director of the Housing Board and infact they were contesting party to the order.
6. Thus, the Managing Director by taking such a stand in his communication dated 17.05.2016, admittedly to make the order dated 14.10.2015 as unworkable.
Consequently, the petitioner approached the Division Bench by filing M.P.No.36860 of 2018 to modify the order dated 14.10.2015 by issuing appropriate direction to the Government. This petition was considered and orders were passed on 22.09.2016 directing the State Government/Commissioner and Secretary to Revenue Department to comply with the direction. The operative portion of the order reads as follows:
“The prayer made in the petition is allowed and the petition is ordered. The order dated 14.10.2015 be corrected to the extent that the direction (3), instead of Tamil Nadu Housing Board, would be http://www.judis.nic.in 13 against the State Government/ the first respondent.
2. In view of the aforesaid, the time period for compliance of the order dated 14.10.2015 is extended upto 15.12.2016.”
7. In terms of the above order, the time for compliance was extended upto 15.12.2016. It is seen that nothing transpired thereafter and the petitioner has been submitting representation to the Secretary to the Government, has sent legal notice yet the matter has gone into cold storage. Therefore, left with no other option, the petitioner is once again before us, seeking to reopen the writ petition to be heard and decided on merits. In our prima facie view, the inaction on the part of the respondent is a clear case of wilful disobedience of the order and direction issued by the Division Bench. It further appears to us that the attempt of the respondents is to somehow circumvent the order passed by the Division Bench which was based on consensus. We are shocked to note that the stand taken by the appellant in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition in paragraph 4, the Housing Board has now taken a stand as if there is a scheme when their initial stand was that there was no scheme in place. Thus, the chain of events clearly shows that every attempt is being made to circumvent and dilute the order passed by Division Bench dated 14.10.2015.
8. However, since, the petitioner has come up only with a petition to reopen, we may not be justified in http://www.judis.nic.in 14 initiating action for contempt against the respondent. However, it is always open to the petitioner to file such petition which will be considered by us. For the above reasons, we are of the view that there will be no necessity to reopen the writ petition as the order is a consent order and all that is required to be tested is whether there has been wilful disobedience of the order and direction issued by the Division Bench, which in our prima facie opinion, is writ large from the various proceedings which have been placed before us.
9. With these observations, the Writ Miscellaneous Petition stands closed. No costs.
7. It is thereafter, this Contempt Petition was filed by the petitioner on 21.02.2019. The Contempt Petition was listed on 28.03.2019, on which date, the learned Additional Government Pleader and the Standing counsel for the Housing Board accepted notice for the respondents. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that after the filing of the Contempt Petition on 21.02.2019, the Government by letter dated 11.03.2019, has rejected the request for reconveyance, which is a blatant contempt of the order and direction issued in W.P.No.7871 of 2007, dated 14.10.2015. Subsequently, the Contempt Petition was heard on 08.04.2019. On 11.04.2019, when we heard the Contempt Petition Mr.P.H.Arvind http://www.judis.nic.in 15 Pandian learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the petitioner states as if, he had given an undertaking in his personal capacity and contempt has arisen on account of violation of such undertaking and that he is greatly pained by such allegation. In response to the said submission, Mr.V.Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioner made it clear that there is no averment made by the petitioner, as if the learned Additional Advocate General in his personal capacity had given an undertaking. We passed the following order dated 11.04.2019, clarifying that there is no allegation personally against the learned Additional Advocate General. The order is as follows:-
We have heard Mr.V.Ramesh, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr.Aravindha Pandian, learned Additional Advocate General, and Mrs.R.Janaki, learned Additional Government Pleader who is accepting notice for the respondent.
2. The learned Additional Advocate General took pains to point out that the petitioner has made an allegation as if he has given an undertaking before the Hon'ble Division Bench and contempt arose on account of the violation of undertaking. Mr.V.Ramesh, learned counsel for the applicant made it clear that there is no averment made as if the learned Additional Advocate General in his personal capacity had given an undertaking. Accordingly, this issue stands clarified to http://www.judis.nic.in 16 the effect that there is no allegation that the learned Additional Advocate General had given an undertaking in his capacity as AAG. The Court will consider the matter after a counter affidavit is filed by the respondent in the main Contempt Petition as well as in the Sub Applications.
3. List the matter on 29.04.2019.
8. Subsequently, we heard on 29.04.2019, 13.06.2019 and on 18.06.2019, on which date we reserved orders in the Contempt Petition with a direction to the respondents to produce certain documents. The order dated 18.06.2019, is quoted below:-
We have heard Mr.V.Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Aravind Pandian, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent. Orders reserved.
2. We direct the respondents to file the copies of the proceedings of the Commissioner of Land Acquisition who has recommended for the release of the lands in Sy.No.145/1, 6 & 7 of Egmore Village measuring to an extent 6 Grounds 1750 Sq.ft. This has been referred to in the affidavit filed by the fourth respondent by name Thiru S.Krishnan, I.A.S., Principal Secretary to the Government, Housing and Urban Development Department in paragraph
12 of the affidavit dated 29.04.2019.
3. Further, the respondents are directed to place before this Court the details concerning the allegation of the land by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.1728 passed by Revenue Department dated 16.10.1984, in particular http://www.judis.nic.in 17 reference to the lands allotted to M/s.Chinmayi Vidyalaya and Tamil Nadu Foundation as well as the other allotments made in the said Government Order. It is not sufficient for the respondent to produce said Government Order but the respondent should produce all the connected correspondence and proceedings which leads to the decision making process and ultimately culminated in G.O.Ms.No.1728 of 1984.
4. These documents should be filed in the form of typed set on or before 08.07.2019.
9. After placing all the above factual details, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that non-compliance of the order and direction dated 14.10.2015, is a blatant contempt, apart from that rejecting the petitioner's request by order dated 11.03.2019, during the pendency of the Contempt Petition is a aggravated form of contempt and the 4th respondent should be punished for the same and the order dated 11.03.2019, should be set aside and direction should be issued for reconveyance of the property, for which the petitioner has filed Sub-Application (OS) No.180 of 2019, challenging the order dated 11.03.2019 and the Application No.162 of 2019, filed to implead the Principal Secretary to Government, Housing & Urban Development Department, as a respondent, was ordered by order on 08.04.2019, and the Secretary to Government has been impleaded as fourth http://www.judis.nic.in 18 respondent in the Contempt Petition.
10. The learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the conduct of the petitioner will clearly show that the petitioner has not cooperated with the department and in this regard has drawn our attention to the affidavit filed by the Assistant Commissioner, Urban & Ceiling, more particularly, the averments in paragraph 6 to show that the compensation of Rs.14,98,326/- was kept ready for payment, but the petitioner did not come to receive the compensation and insisted upon the release of the land in her favour. It is further submitted that the Contempt Petition is clearly barred by limitation, as it has been filed after a period of one year and this Court will not initiate any proceedings for contempt after expiry of one year in the light of the embargo under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. In support of his contention, the learned counsel referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pallav Sheth vs. Custodian & Ors., reported in (2001) 7 SCC 549 and the decision in the case of Maheshwar Peri & Ors. vs. High Court of Judicature at Alahabad reported in (2016) 14 SCC 251. Referring to paragraph 8(3) of the order dated 14.10.2015, in W.P.No.7871 of 2017, it is submitted that the State Government has passed fresh http://www.judis.nic.in 19 orders in terms of such direction and if the petitioner is aggrieved, it is still open to her to challenge the same in the manner known to law and she cannot initiate contempt proceedings, that too beyond the period of limitation. Thus, it is the submission of the learned Additional Advocate General that it is the petitioner, who wanted a quietus to be given in the matter and the Writ Petition was disposed of and the direction issued in the Writ Petition has been complied with culminating in the order dated 11.03.2019 and contempt proceedings is not the appropriate remedy, apart from the fact the respondents have not committed any act of Contempt.
11. In reply, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterated that the observations contained in paragraph 2 of the order dated 14.10.2015 in W.P.No.7871 of 2007, is a response by the petitioner to the query which was raised by the Court and this Court can test the correctness of the order dated 11.03.2019, in this Contempt Petition and the petitioner has also prayed for setting aside the order by filing a separate Miscellaneous Petition and this Court has got sufficient powers to issue appropriate direction, so that the petitioner is given the relief.
12. On 18.06.2019, we had reserved orders in the contempt http://www.judis.nic.in 20 petition and issued directions to the respondents to file copies of the proceedings of the Commissioner of Land Administration, who recommended for release of the lands in question, which had been referred to in the affidavit filed by the 4 th respondent. Further, the details concerning the allotment of land in G.O.Ms.No.1728 dated 16.10.1984 were also called for along with the connected correspondence.
13. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Board filed a typed set of papers on 08.07.2019 containing the copies of G.O.Ms.No.1728 dated 16.10.1984, a copy of the proceedings of the Additional Chief Secretary Land Administration dated 22.06.2018, a copy of the letter of the Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board dated 30.08.2018 and a copy of the Government letter dated 11.03.2019 and in addition, relevant file was circulated.
14. We have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and carefully perused the materials placed on record.
15. The above facts would clearly show that the present litigation has had a chequered history and the legal battle commenced by the http://www.judis.nic.in 21 petitioner's father Shanmugasundaram, is being pursued by the petitioner, his daughter and in the process, three of the family members of the petitioner are no more, namely, her father, her mother and her brother and leaving the petitioner to fend herself alone, she being a spinster.
16. First we take up for consideration the objection made by the respondents with regard to the maintainability of the Contempt Petition.
17. Section 20 of the Contempt of Court Act states that no Court shall initiate any proceedings for contempt, either on its own motion or otherwise, after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed. Thus, the starting point for computing the limitation would be from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed. In Firm Ganpat Ram Rajkumar vs. Kalu Ram reported in 1989 Supp (2) SCC 418, wherein when an order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court ordering delivering of premises had not been complied with, an application was filed for initiation of contempt proceedings. This application was resisted based on Section 20 of the Contempt of http://www.judis.nic.in 22 Courts Act, dealing with the said contention, it was held as follows:-
“Another point was taken about limitation of this application under section 20 of the Act. S. 20 states that no court shall initiate any proceedings for contempt, either on its own motion or otherwise, afterthe expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed. In this case, the present application was filed on or about 3rd November, 1988 as appears from the affidavit in support of the application. The contempt considered, inter alia, of the act of not giving the possession by force of the order of the learned Sr. Sub-Judge, Narnaul dated 12th February, 1988. Therefore, the application was well within the period of one year. Failure to give possession, if it amounts to a contempt in a situation of this nature is a continuing wrong. There was no scope for application of s: 20 of the Act. ”
18. In the above decision, the Contempt Petition was held to be not barred by limitation, because it was filed within one year from the date, on which, the Contempt was alleged to have been committed and the failure to give possession amounted to a continuing wrong.
18a.With regard to the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act to Contempt of Courts Act, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of West Bengal vs. Karthick Chandra Das reported in (1996) 5 SCC http://www.judis.nic.in 23 342, held as hereunder:-
"7. In consequence, by operation of Section 29(2) read with Section 3 of the Limitation Act, limitation stands prescribed as a special law under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act and limitation in filing Letters Patent appeal stands attracted. In consequence, Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act stands attracted to Letters Patent appeal insofar as and to the extent to which they are not expressly excluded either by special or local law. Since the rules made on the appellate side, either for entertaining the appeals under clause 15 of the Letters Patent or appeals arising under the contempt of courts, had not expressly excluded, Section 5 of the Limitation Act becomes applicable. We hold that Section 5 of the Limitation Act does apply to the appeals filed against the order of the learned Single Judge for the enforcement by way of a contempt. The High Court, therefore, was not right in holding that Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply. The delay stands condoned. Since the High Court had not dealt with the matter on merits, we decline to express any opinion on merits. The case stands remitted to the Division Bench for decision on merits."
19. The question, which came up for consideration in Pallav Sheth is whether in view of the provisions of Section 20 of Contempt of Courts Act, the Special Court was prohibited from taking any action against the contemnor after the expiry period of one year from the http://www.judis.nic.in 24 date, on which, the contempt was alleged to have been committed. The argument was that prescribing a period of limitation for initiating proceedings for contempt, abrogates or stultifies the contempt jurisdiction under Article 129 or Article 215 of the Constitution of India. The Court, after taking into consideration other decisions, some of which we have referred above, held that Section 20 does not stultify the powers under Article 129 or Article 215. In the said decision, it was pointed out that one of the principles underlying the law of limitation is that a litigant must act diligently and not sleep over its rights. In this background such an interpretation should be placed on Section 20 of the Act which does not lead to an anomalous result causing hardship to the party who may have acted with utmost diligence and because of the inaction on the part of the Court, a contemner cannot be made to suffer. It was further pointed out that if the interpretation of the appellant therein was accepted, it would mean that the Court would be rendered powerless to punish eventhough it may be fully convinced of the blatant nature of a contempt having been committed and the same having been brought to the notice of the Court soon after the committal of the contempt and within the period of one year of the same. Thus, it was held that Section 20 has to be construed in a manner, which would avoid such an anomaly and http://www.judis.nic.in 25 hardship both as regards the litigants and as also by placing a pointless fetter on the part of the Court to punish for its contempt. Ultimately, the Court held that the action taken by the Special Court to punish the appellant therein for contempt was valid.
20. The decision in Pallav Sheth (supra), was followed in Maheshwar Peri & Ors.(supra). The decision in Pallav Sheth (supra), has settled the legal position. We now need to apply the settled legal principle to the facts of the present case. In the earlier paragraphs of this order, we had given the various dates and events which have occurred culminating in the filing of the contempt petition. The order and direction issued by the Division Bench is dated 14.10.2015 and in paragraph 8(3), the 3rd respondent Housing Board was granted three months' time from the date of receipt of the order to comply with the directions. Admittedly, the Housing Board did not comply with the direction, but belatedly sent a communication on 17.05.2016, to the petitioner informing her that they have no jurisdiction to pass orders under Section 48B and it is the Government which is competent to do so. Therefore, the petitioner was compelled to come before this Court and seek for modification of the order in Writ Petition by filing WMP.No.19856 of 2016. This petition was allowed on http://www.judis.nic.in 26 22.09.2016 by directing the Government to pass orders instead of the Housing Board and the time was extended till 15.10.2016. Admittedly, the respondents/State Government did not comply with the order within the said time and in the interregnum, the petitioner had submitted representations. The tenor of the representations clearly show that the respondents were compelling the petitioner to accept the compensation. This is admitted by the Assistant Commissioner, ULC in his affidavit filed in the Contempt Petition. Thus, one limb of the Government was attempting to pressurise the petitioner to receive the compensation payable under the Urban & Land Ceiling Act, while the other limb of the Government, which had suffered a direction at the hands of the Division Bench, was prolonging the matter without complying with the direction, though time limit was specifically fixed for compliance as 15.12.2016.
21. In 2017, precisely on 13.11.2017, a communication was sent from the office of the District Collector, Chennai to the Special Tahsildar (LA) Housing Board requesting him to inspect the land and send a detailed report, so as to forward the same to the Additional Chief Secretary/Commissioner of Land Administration. There are two communications, which are referred in the said letter one being http://www.judis.nic.in 27 Government letter dated 06.10.2017, and another letter from the Commissioner of Land Administration, dated 09.10.2017. Immediately thereafter on 11.12.2017, the petitioner submitted a representation. The communication, which emanated from the office of the District Collector, in all probabilities would have led the petitioner to believe that something is moving in her direction. Having waited for reasonable time, she submitted representations and legal notices, however nothing moved and ultimately Contempt Petition was filed on 21.02.2019. The petitioner cannot be stated to be not diligent in the matter of prosecuting the case. It is the definite case of the petitioner that given the tenor of the order of the Division Bench, the respondents cannot refuse to hand over the lands to her. If this is the position, then the cause of action for the petitioner is continuing. As early as on 19.11.2001, this Court while allowing the Writ Petition in W.P.No.22006 of 2000, noted the plight of the petitioner that vast extent of land measuring about 10255 sq.mts., and another 500 sq.mts., were taken from the petitioner/family under the provisions of the Urban Land Ceiling Act and an extent of 6 grounds and 1750 sq.ft., was permitted as a retainable extent. The petitioner challenged these proceedings by availing the remedies under the Act and ultimately filed the Writ Petition in W.P.No.7871 of 2007, having been unsuccessful, http://www.judis.nic.in 28 before the Tamil Nadu Urban Reforms Special Appellate Tribunal. While these proceedings were pending, the retainable extent given by the Government was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. Thus, leaving the petitioner 'landless'. All these facts would clearly show that the cause of action for the petitioner was continuing and the respondents having not adhered to the time limit, the petitioner cannot be non-suited by contending that the Contempt Petition is barred by limitation. Furthermore, before approaching this Court the petitioner had submitted several representations, which we have referred in the preceding paragraphs. There was absolutely no response from the respondents inspite of specific directions. Even thereafter, the petitioner did not rush to this Court stating that the respondents have wilfully disobeyed the order but chose to file a petition to reopen the writ petition in W.P.No.7871 of 2007, which was disposed of on 14.10.2015 and this petition was heard and disposed of by order dated 13.02.2019, which we have extracted above. This is very important fact to demonstrate that the petitioner has not been sleeping over her rights and has been vigilantly pursuing the matter. For all the above reasons, the first objection raised by the learned Additional Advocate General is rejected and it is held that the Contempt Petition is maintainable.
http://www.judis.nic.in 29
22. Next, we proceed to consider as to whether there has been wilful disobedience of the order and direction in Writ Petition in W.P.No.7871 of 2007, dated 14.10.2015.
23. The petitioner agreed to withdraw the Writ Petition presumably having become frustrated by the long drawn litigation and without being able to get any relief at the hands of the respondents, inspite of several orders passed by this Court, both by the single ? Benches as well as by the Division Bench. Thus, the petitioner agreed to give a quietus to the matter, which was recorded in the order dated 14.10.2015 in paragraph 2. The quietus agreed to be given was on the ground that the judgment in W.A.No.389 of 2006, dated 10.07.2009, would be followed by the respondents in its letter and spirit. Thus, we need to ascertain as to whether the respondents followed the judgment in W.A.No.389 of 2006, dated 10.07.2009 in its letter and spirit. Even while disposing of the Writ Petition by order dated 14.10.2015, the Court came to the conclusion that the order passed by the Housing Board dated 22.07.2007 is not in conformity with the judgment in W.A.No.389 of 2006. Therefore, even though the said order was not impugned in the said proceedings, the same was http://www.judis.nic.in 30 quashed. Thus, we need to consider the judgment in W.A.No.389 of 2006, to ascertain as to what were the directions/observations made by the Division Bench in the said judgment. For better appreciation, we extract the relevant paragraphs of the said judgment as hereunder:-
“2.The facts in brief : the petitioners were owning lands roughly to an extent of 64 grounds. Proceedings were initiated under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Ceiling Act, under which an extent of 10255 sw.mtr were acquired by the Government as surplus lands under the said Act. The said lands acquired by the Government were used for the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation, Chinmayananda Vidyala etc. The petitioners were left out only with 2000 sq. metres, out of which 500 sq. meters were taken by the Government and allotted to chinmayananda Vidyalaya. Hence, they were left with 6 ½ grounds. Two grounds out of which is the pathway.
3.On 27.12.1989, notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued for the purpose of housing scheme under which the lands belonging to the petitioners were cited to be acquired. The petitioners gave objection and then Section 6 declaration was passed on 22.1.1991. The petitioners applied for deletion of their lands from acquisition proceedings and since that was rejected, W.P.No.22006 of 2000 was filed. This Court allowed the said writ petition directing the Government to http://www.judis.nic.in 31 consider the representation of the petitioners and to pass orders and while doing so, held as follows:-
5.It is not in dispute that the acquisition proceedings had become final, now in the counter it is stated that possession has been taken over by the Government on 15.12.2000, after passing the impugned order. The only ground on which the Government has rejected the petitioners' request is that their lands are required for integral housing scheme. From the affidavit filed before this Court, I am able to see that though vast extent of lands had been taken over from the petitioners, the same had not been utilized for integral housing scheme, but they were given to various institutions, not only to the public but also for private institutions.
When the Government did not think of the said scheme while allotting those lands to the other institutions including private institutions, I am not able to understand as to how such integral housing scheme can be implemented only with those 6 grounds.
6.Moreover, the Special Deputy Collector, Tamil Nadu Housing Board Scheme himself in his report dated 24.12.1995 recommended for withdrawal of the acquisition proceedings exercising powers under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act. On inspection, has stated that “the land bearing S.No.145/1 is with a http://www.judis.nic.in 32 completely dilapidated old building reduced to rubbish and nothing else. This portion lies on the north – east corner of the land handed over to Tamil Nadu Housing board and the Tamil Nadu Housing Board has raised pucca compound wall segregating the land in S.No.145/1 A6. The land in S.No.145/1 is used as link road from Taylors Road to S.No.145/1.
7.It is also stated by the Special Deputy
Collector that the head of family
Thiru.Shanmugasundaram passed away on
19.12.1990 leaving his wife and one son and
daughter. They are unmarried and are at the
thresholds of life and the entire family is in lurch due to the acquisition of retainable area given by the government. It is fit case for kind consideration of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board and Government to withdraw the land under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act.
...................
9.In view of the fact that the Government has not taken into consideration the above said facts which are very much relevant for the purpose of consideration of the petitioners' representation, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law, and so the same is set aside and the petitioners are permitted to approach the Government again under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, as possession had already http://www.judis.nic.in 33 been taken, and the Government is directed to consider the same and pass orders on merits, taking into consideration the above said facts and the report of the Special Deputy Collector.
Such an order should be passed within three months from the date of receipt of the said representation. Meanwhile, the Tamil Nadu Housing Board is directed not to deal with the lands in question.
4.Thereafter, they again gave representation. Again the same was rejected by the Government by letter dated 29.07.2002, wherein it reads as follows:-
According to Section 48-B of the Land Acquisition Act, there is provision to re-convey the lands to the owners of the lands, only if the Government decides that the land is not required for the purpose for which the said land was acquired. In the circumstances, it has been informed that since the land acquired by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, for which you are seeking re-conveyance, is situated in the centre of Chennai and hence, the Tamil Nadu Housing Board needs time to implement a proper scheme in a manner to be beneficial to the public.
5.Again writ petition has been filed in W.P.No.35066/2002. The learned Single Judge by order dated 27.1.2006 dismissed the writ petition holding that the Government cannot exercise power under Section 48B of the Act. This judgment followed on an earlier judgment http://www.judis.nic.in 34 reported in 2006 (1) CTC 305 -Perichiappa Gounder v.
The State of Tamilnadu. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the fact situation before the Division Bench in 2006(4) CTC 290 is identical to the present case. According to the learned counsel, in this case too, there is mechanical rejection of the application without consideration of the individual grievance of the appellants. The learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that in 2007 (2) CTC 447 – Tamil Nadu Housing Board vs. Keeravani Ammal, the Supreme Court had specifically observed as:-
“Section 48-B introduced into the Act in the State of Tamil Nadu is an exception to this rule. Such a provision has to be strictly construed and strict compliance with its terms insisted upon. Whether such a provision can be challenged for its validity, we are not called upon to decide here”
6. In these circumstances, the learned counsel submitted that their application under Section 48B of the Act should be considered by applying their mind to the relevant facts stated by the petitioners in their representation.
7. Mr.D.Veerasekaran, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent would submit that while it is true that the judgment report in 2006 (1) CTC 305 (cited supra) has been over ruled, as on date, there is no representation pending before the Government for any action to be taken. In 2006 4 CTC 290 – Shanmugam.R.V http://www.judis.nic.in 35 The State of Tamil Nadu, the Division Bench held that the right to property is not a fundamental right after insertion of Article 300A by the Constitution (Forty Fourth Amendment) Act, 1978, but yet, recent judgment of the Supreme Court held that it is human right and constitutional right and therefore, the Courts are bound to protect any deprivation of this right.
8. The petitioners are entitled to the consideration of their case under Section 48B of the Act and to merely observe that their lands are required for the scheme will not suffice. Therefore, the writ appeal is allowed on the ground that the decision followed by the learned Single Judge for dismissing the writ petition has been overruled and we direct the petitioners to make their representation by setting out the facts. The second respondent is directed to dispose of the representation taking into account the earlier orders, in particular, the order passed in W.P.No.2206 of 2000, within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of representation of the petitioners.
No costs.
24. The Court, after taking into consideration the facts as well as the law, held that the petitioners are entitled to the consideration of their case under Section 48B and to merely observe that their lands are required for the scheme will not suffice.
25. To be noted that in the order dated 14.10.2015, in http://www.judis.nic.in 36 W.P.No.7871 of 2007, the direction contained in paragraph 8(3), directs fresh orders to be passed by the competent authority of the Housing Board after hearing the parties within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the orders strictly taking into consideration the observations made by the Division Bench in W.A.No.389 of 2006, including the affirmation of what was opined by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, there can be no escape from this pointed direction issued by the Division Bench. Furthermore, the order passed by the Housing Board, dated 22.07.2011, was quashed. In the said communication after referring to the land acquisition proceedings, it was stated that due to Court case, the scheme could not be implemented and that the land measuring 6 grounds and 1750 sq.ft., is situated very near to the Taylors Road and surrendered by the existing Tamil Nadu Housing Board Tower Block and is the heart of the city and hence, the need for housing in the area is very high. The reason assigned in the communication, dated 22.07.2011, was found to be improper and accordingly, the said order was quashed. Apart from that, the earlier order which was passed on 29.07.2002, was also quashed by the Division Bench in W.A.No.389 of 2006, and while allowing the Writ Appeal, the Division Bench pointed out that merely to observe that the lands are required for the scheme will not suffice. http://www.judis.nic.in 37 Therefore, the respondents cannot fall back on the same set of reasons, which they have adopted on the earlier occasions and which were found to be unsustainable and accordingly, quashed. At this juncture, it is relevant to take note of the proceedings of the Special Deputy Collector, Tamil Nadu Housing Board Scheme addressed to the Managing Director, dated 24.12.1993. The Managing Director called for remarks from the Special Deputy Collector on the request of the petitioner for exclusion of an extent of 6 grounds and 1750 sq.ft. After referring to the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act and the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Ceiling Act, it was pointed out that after taking over of the surplus land, the Government in G.O.Ms.No.1728, Revenue Department, dated 16.10.1984, allotted an extent of 6460 sq.mtrs., to Chinmaya Vidyalaya; 3126 sq.mtrs to Tamil Nadu Housing Board; 669 sq.mtrs to Tamil Nadu Foundation 500 sq.mtrs to TNCSC; and 10755 sq.mtrs allotted as per G.O.Ms.No.1609, Revenue dated 28.08.1988. It was further stated that the difference in extent from 10255 sq.mtrs to 10755 sq.mtrs is due to the demise of Tmt.Rajagopal Amma and her retainable extent of 500 sq.mtrs from the total eligibility of 2000 sq.mtrs was taken over by the Government by G.O.Ms.No.2317, Revenue Department, dated 14.12.1988 and added that area to the adjacent Chinmaya mission. The readjusted extent has also been http://www.judis.nic.in 38 mentioned in the said proceedings. The Special Deputy Collector appears to have conducted an inspection and has recorded the fact that the Tamil Nadu Housing Board has built a multi-storied building in the surplus land acquired under the Urban Land Ceiling Act.
26. It has been further mentioned that the petitioner's mother in her representation, dated 01.10.1993 has come forward to withdraw the case in the event the Government is agreeable to exempt the lands from land acquisition proceedings. Therefore, the Special Deputy Collector opined that the issue requires sympathetic consideration as major junk of land has already been taken over by the Government under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Ceiling Act and allowed the owners to retain 2000 sq.mtrs for their family; it will be unjustifiable and cruel to acquire the said retainable extent under the Land Acquisition Act and it is like giving the land by one hand and snatching the same by another hand. Further, the Special Deputy Collector has inspected the land comprised in survey no.145/1, and has recorded that there is a completely dilapidated old building in the property and it is situated on the north-east corner of the land handed over to the Housing Board, which has raised a compound wall segregating land in survey no.145/1 and 145/6 and the land in survey No.145/6 is used as link road from http://www.judis.nic.in 39 Taylors Road to survey no.145/1. With these facts, the Special Deputy Collector has stated that the necessary recommendation may be made to the Government for withdrawal of the land acquisition proceedings. As called for by the Government, the correct extent of land, which was declared as surplus under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Ceiling Act was furnished along with the said proceedings and a sketch of the property. Though the Special Deputy Collector had addressed the Managing Director of the Housing Board stating that the petitioner's case is a fit case for recommending withdrawal of the acquisition proceedings, there has been no reference to this proceedings, dated 24.12.1993, in any of the earlier orders passed by the respondent Board, in particular in the letter dated 22.07.2011, which was subsequently quashed.
27. During the pendency of the Contempt Petition, the fourth respondent has passed an order dated 11.03.2019. In the said Government letter, there is no reference to the recommendations made by the Special Deputy Collector to the Managing Director, Housing Board based on information called for. The Government letter consists of 8 paragraphs in four pages. Page 1 of the order is devoted to the names and addresses, subject column and references. Paragraphs 1 to 4 narrate about the land acquisition proceedings, the http://www.judis.nic.in 40 Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner and her mother and orders passed therein. In paragraph 5, the order and direction issued in W.P.No.7871 of 2007, has been extracted; paragraph 6 mentions about the opportunity of the personal hearing afforded to the petitioner on 02.05.2017; paragraph 7 refers to the stand taken by the Housing Board during the personal hearing. The stand is identical to what was taken in the communication of the Managing Director, dated 22.07.2011, which was quashed by this Court. Paragraph 8 is purported to be the decision of the Government. Sub-para (a) refers to the award; sub-para (b) refers to possession of the land being taken; sub-para (c) refers to deposit of the compensation amount and sub-para (d) states that the lands are essentially required. Sub-paras
(a), (b) & (c) can never be stated to be reasons as to why the land cannot be released under Section 48 of the Act. Sub-para (d) in para 8 can hardly be a reason because the same stand taken by the Government was frowned upon by this Court earlier and orders were quashed. Therefore, if the 4th respondent takes such a stand, it would clearly amount to wilful disobedience of the direction warranting stringent action under the Contempt of Courts Act.
28. In the impugned Government order in paragraph 6, there is a reference to the personal hearing granted to the petitioner on http://www.judis.nic.in 41 02.05.2017. If this date is reckoned on 02.05.2017, the petitioner was well justified in submitting representations after she attended the personal hearing, which was fixed on 02.05.2017. However, the impugned order has been passed on 11.03.2019. Therefore, this will also justify our conclusion that the cause of action for filing the Contempt Petition was continuing. The fourth respondent has wilfully flouted the order and direction issued by the Division Bench in W.A.No.389 of 2006. The fourth respondent has not taken into consideration any of the observations or directions issued in the judgment dated 10.07.2009. The tenor and language of the impugned Government letter, dated 11.03.2019, will amply demonstrate that the fourth respondent seeks to defy the directions issued by the Court. One of us (TSSJ) was a party to the order dated 14.10.2015 in W.P.No.7871 of 2007. The said Writ Petition was heard on several dates and certain suggestions fell from the Court and it is only pursuant to that, the petitioner agreed to withdraw the Writ Petition and this Court was conscious of the fact that the petitioner was vexed twice, because substantial extent of land was taken over under the provisions of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, and the retainable extent was also stripped away by exercising the power of compulsory acquisition. Therefore, being conscious of all these issues, the suggestions, which http://www.judis.nic.in 42 fell from Court was acceptable to the petitioner and we are well justified in coming to a conclusion that the petitioner was led to believe that the entire proceedings would stand culminated and that she would be entitled to retain the extent of 6 grounds and 1750 sq.ft., and the curtain will be drawn. Unfortunately, the fourth respondent seems to defy the directions of the Division Bench, protract and prolong the proceedings and parallely compel the petitioner to accept the compensation, which she has clearly stated that she is pursuing the matter for re-conveyance and would not be in a position to receive the compensation. The relevant files, more particularly, the recommendation of the Special Deputy Collector has been either ignored or suppressed. The relevant facts directed to be taken note of have been brushed aside. Many a times, the Court refrains from issuing positive directions in certain issues. This is with the object that the Government or the authority should exercise their power with due diligence and application of mind. Thus, the Court, while relegating the matter to the Government, often makes pointed observations and leave the ultimate decision to be taken by the Government. This does not mean that the Government will ignore all observations of the Court and take a stand that they have been directed to consider and they will only reject. If this stand is allowed to be perpetuated, it will http://www.judis.nic.in 43 result in anarchy. Proceedings before a Court will be reduced into a mockery, judgment and orders will not be worth their weight in paper. Can such a situation be allowed to prevail. The answer is an emphatic “No”. Thus, we are of the clear view that the fourth respondent has wilfully disobeyed the order and direction issued by the Division Bench and therefore, is liable to be punished under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act.
29. Furthermore, the Additional Chief Secretary/Commissioner of Land Administration, Chennai addressed the Principal Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, Chennai vide letter No.M1/23015/2017, dated 22.06.2018. In the said communication, the Commissioner of Land Administration refers to the Government letters dated 06.10.2017, 20.11.2017, 22.12.2017 and 05.02.2018, wherein the Government had requested to send the views of the Commissionerate of Land Administration regarding re-conveyance of the subject land based on the orders passed in W.P.No.7871 of 2007. The Commissioner of Land Administration by letters dated 15.02.2017, 18.02.2018 and 24.04.2018 had requested the District Collector to send the detailed report after inspecting the acquired land and also to inform specifically, if it is necessary for the http://www.judis.nic.in 44 Government/Public future purposes. While the matter was pending before the Commissioner of Land Administration, the Government by letter D.O. Letter No.4927/LA2-1/2013 Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 11.06.2018 informed the Commissioner that the time limit granted by this Court in its order had already been lapsed on 15.12.2016 for compliance and that the petitioner has submitted petition to the Government to expedite the implementation of the order of this Court, failing which, the petitioner would file a contempt petition for wilful disobedience of the order or file an application before this Court to reopen W.P.No.7871 of 2007. After setting out all these facts, the Secretary to Government requested the Commissioner of Land Administration to send the report on or before 30.06.2018 to avoid contempt proceedings and further litigation in the matter. Pursuance to all these proceedings/communications, it appears that the Revenue Administration had conducted inspection and the District Revenue Officer, Chennai by proceedings dated 16.05.2018, informed that the Tahsildar, Egmore Taluk had sent a report about the lands in question. Further, the Commissioner of Land Administration, in no uncertain terms had stated that considering the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court and the report dated 24.12.1995 (1993) http://www.judis.nic.in 45 of the Special Deputy Collector, Housing Board and the fact that only part of the land acquired in the Urban Land Ceiling proceedings has been utilized by the Housing Board for construction of flats for Government servants and the balance lands have been handed over to Chinmaya Vidyalaya and others and the fact that leaving the passage, no integrated scheme can be formulated by the Housing Board in the balance extent, i.e. 4 Grounds and 225 sq.ft. and that even after lapse of 24 years, compensation has not been paid to the land owners for the lands taken over under the Urban Land Ceiling Act, it is desired that Government may reconvey the balance lands to the petitioner. Accordingly the Commissioner of Land Administration requested the Government to consider reconveying the balance extent of unutilized lands to the land owner and issue necessary orders early. The lands have been acquired from the various land owners stating that they have been acquired for the purpose of developing a Housing Scheme etc. When the lands have been handed over to them after the sale deed execution, the party in the guise of remodeling sold the lands to the private builders and constructed Kalyana Mandapam. Regarding the same, the Slum Clearance Board also noticed that many lands have been converted into commercial and religious places, but there is no answer from the Board. The lands were acquired for specific http://www.judis.nic.in 46 purpose, i.e. developing a Housing Scheme and the same should not be permitted to be used for any other purpose. The Government should initiate steps to identify such unauthorised conversions and not permit such conversion into commercial or religious places.
30. In our considered view the communication sent by the Commissioner of Land Administration dated 22.06.2018 should have more than a persuasive value and considering the facts of the case, it should have a binding value on the Government. This is so because it is the Government, which called for the report from the Commissioner of Land Administration ever since 2017. The Commissioner of Land Administration clearly understood the scope of the direction issued by the Division Bench, the viability of putting the land to any other use for developing a housing scheme, the plight of the land owner who had been striped of the entire lands by initiating proceedings both under the Urban Land Ceiling Act and under the Land Acquisition Act, recommended for reconveyance. Unfortunately the Principal Secretary to Government, Housing Urban Development Department, while passing the impugned order dated 11.03.2019 has not ever referred to the positive recommendation of the Commissioner of Land Administration. We can safely conclude, either the recommendation of http://www.judis.nic.in 47 the Commissioner was suppressed or the recommendation was deliberately not referred to. But for the affidavit filed by the Principal Secretary in these proceedings, the recommendation of the Commissioner of Land Administration would not have come to light.
31. We had called for the copy of the Government Order, by which, the lands, which were acquired from the petitioner/family under the Urban Land Ceiling Act were distributed. We find that apart from the Government Departments, there are certain private parties to whom the lands have been allotted and one such private party being Chinmaya Vidyalaya for construction of a school. Admittedly the institution is a fee levying school, however, it is not clear as to what weighed in the minds of the Government in the year 1984 to allot an extent of 4460 sq.m of land in S.No.145/4. Thus, it could be seen from the Government Order that atleast one private party was a beneficiary under G.O.Ms.No.1728 dated 16.10.1984. However, we are not attempting to reopen those proceedings, but we have referred to the same to place on record that the Government while distributing the lands acquired from the petitioner/family had distributed substantial portion of the same to a private body. http://www.judis.nic.in 48
32. The argument of the learned Additional Advocate General is that now that the Government has passed an order on 11.03.2019, it is well open to the petitioner to work out her remedies before the appropriate forum. The fourth respondent nor any of his officers at no point of time can take such a stand. The fourth respondent is guilty of having violated the direction issued in the order dated 14.10.2015. The violation has been perpetuated by passing the non-speaking, cryptic and arbitrary order dated 11.03.2019. Therefore, this Court would be well within its jurisdiction to exercise its curative power under the Contempt of Courts Act.
33. To be noted, the proceedings, dated 11.03.2019, which is impugned herein, has been passed after the Contempt Petition was filed. This proceedings can never be taken as a compliance of the direction issued by the Division Bench. Therefore, the Court has sufficient jurisdiction to quash the proceedings. Accordingly, Sub- Application No(OS).180 of 2019 is allowed and the Government Letter No.4927/LA2-1/2013-31, dated 11.03.2019, is quashed.
34. In the light of the above reasoning, we would be well justified in issuing notice to the fourth respondent calling for his http://www.judis.nic.in 49 explanation as to why a sentence should not be imposed on him for wilful disobedience of the order and direction. However, before doing so, we deem it appropriate to give one more opportunity to the fourth respondent to remedy the breach. The fourth respondent is directed to pass orders directing the exclusion of an extent of 6 grounds and 1750 sq.ft., and hand over vacant possession of the said property to the petitioner within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the fourth respondent shall appear before this Court in person and explain as to why he should not be sentenced under the Contempt of Courts Act.
35.List the matter on 07.08.2019 for reporting compliance.
(T.S.S., J.) (V.B.S., J.)
16.07.2019
Index : Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
pbn
Office to note: Issue order copy on 17.07.2019 http://www.judis.nic.in 50 T.S.Sivagnanam, J.
and V.Bhavani Subbaroyan, J.
(pbn) To
1.Mr.Atulya Mishra I.A.S., The State of Tamil Nadu Rep., by the Commissioner & Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Fort St., George, Chennai-600009.
2.Mr.Bhuvaraghavan, The Assistant Commissioner, Urban Land Ceiling & Urban Land Tax, Egmore, Chennai – 600008.
3.Mr.P.K.Vairamuthu, The Chairman and Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, No.493, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai – 600 0035.
4.Mr.S.Krishnan, I.A.S., The Principal Secretary to Government, Housing & Urban Development Department, Secretariate, Chennai -600 009.
Contempt Petition No.538 of 2019 and Sub Application (OS) No.180 of 2019 16.07.2019 http://www.judis.nic.in