The above contempt petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to punish the respondents for wilfully disobeying the order of this Court passed in W.P.No.11350 of 2005, dated 4.4.2005.
2. It is stated that the petitioners are permanently residing at Door Nos.1, 2/46-A, 3/46, 4/50 and 5 Madha Koil Nagar, Union Salai, Nolambur Village, Ambattur Taluk, Chennai, Thiruvallore District for more than 35 years.
3. It is further submitted that the petitioners' are landless coolies belonging to the schedule caste. The petitioners are residing with their family members including their aged parents. The petitioners have been regularly paying house tax and property tax to the Nolambur Panchayat and to the Revenue Department. They are having the documents to prove that they are in absolute possession and enjoyment of the properties for the past several decades.
4. It is further submitted that the lands occupied by the petitioners are part of the Government Poramboke lands entered in the revenue records as Meikkal Poramboke lands. While so, the Government of Tamil Nadu had passed a Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.168, Revenue, dated 27.3.2000, stating that if an encroacher in a Government Poramboke has been living there for 10 years or more, such land in his occupation may be allotted to him by issuing of a patta. Instead of following the said Government Order, the Revenue Inspector, Ambattur, had issued notices to the petitioners, under
Section 5 of The Tamil Nadu Act No.5 of 1905, on 2.3.2005, asking the petitioners to vacate the lands occupied by them without even granting them sufficient time to do so.
5. The petitioners had submitted their representations to the respondents requesting them not to evict the petitioners and instead to issue patta in their names for the lands under their occupation. Since the petitioners were threatened by the respondents that they would be evicted without further notice, they had approached this Court by way of a writ petition in W.P.No.7567 of 2005. On 4.3.2005, an order was passed by this Court directing the respondents to consider the representations of the petitioners before passing further orders. However, the respondents had passed orders without considering the representations made by the petitioners, dated 2.3.2005, and without following the directions issued by this Court. In such circumstances, the petitioners had filed another writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.11350 of 2005, challenging the said order passed by the respondents. By an order, dated 4.4.2005, this Court had disposed of the said writ petition. Paragraph 7 of the order reads as follows:
"7. It is needless to mention while passing final order after issuing show cause notice and when a reply is submitted by the party concerned, there is a duty on the respondents to refer to the explanations and to deal with the same on merits. Unfortunately, the printed format which has been utilised in this case, does not have any reference to the show cause notice or the explanation given by the petitioners. It is apparent from the facts that not only the petitioners have filed a copy of their reply, but also a subsequent communication of the third respondent dated 10.3.2005 refers to the petitioners' representation dated 2.3.2005 and rejecting their request for grant of patta. It cannot be denied that it is only in the same representation dated 2.3.2005, the petitioners have submitted their explanation."
6. In spite of such an order being passed by this Court, the respondents have illegally evicted the petitioners from the lands in which they were living and their houses had been demolished. Thus, the respondents have wilfully disobeyed the order passed by this Court, on 4.4.2005, in W.P.No.11350 of 2005.
7. A counter affidavit has been filed by the second respondent tendering his unconditional apology for any act or omission which may amount to contempt of Court. At the same time, the second respondent had submitted that the respondents have not committed any contempt of Court to their knowledge, since the action taken by the respondents to evict the encroachers vide L.Dis.3354/2005/C2, dated 10.3.2005, was only in relation to S.No.105/1. The action was taken by the Tahsildar, Ambattur, after sufficient notice had been issued, under Section 6 of The Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905. Thereafter, the Tahsildar, Ambattur, had passed orders rejecting the request of the petitioners to issue patta for the land in S.No.105/1, vide Rc.No.4683/99/C2, dated 18.5.2005.
8. It is also submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that there was unprecedented rainfall during the North East Monsoon in the year 2005. Many villages, including Nolambur village, were submerged in water. All the encroachments affecting free flow of water were removed. The unoccupied huts put up by the petitioners in S.No.103/1, classified as cattle stand, were also removed by R.I., Maduravoyal, to ensure free flow of water from the village into coovam river through the land S.No.103/1.
9. It has been further stated that the petitioners had encroached into the Government Poramboke land in S.No.105/1, classified as Government Grazing Ground Poramboke land, even though their houses are in Madha Koil Nagar Street, in S.No.162/2, classified as Cheri natham of Nolambur Village, Ambattur. Further, no documentary evidence such as revenue receipts for payment of assessment for unauthorised occupation have been produced by the petitioners to prove their occupation of the land in question for the past 35 years as claimed by them. The petitioners have not even established that they have been in occupation of the land for 10 years or more for application of G.O.Ms.No.168, Revenue, dated 27.3.2000, which is an one time scheme.
10. It is submitted that the orders passed in Rc.No.3354/2005/C2, dated 10.3.2005, rejecting the request of the petitioners to grant patta for the land are in accordance with the instructions of the Government for regularization of encroachments issued in G.O.Ms.No.168, Revenue, dated 27.3.2000, read with Government Letter No.11414/1(2) 2000-05 Revenue, dated 2.5.2000. Further, the petitioners were not in occupation of the Government Poramboke land in question as per the revenue records during the year 2000-01. Hence, their requests were rejected by the Tahsildar, Ambattur, by his proceedings Rc.No.4683/99/C2, dated 18.5.2005.
11. Accepting the contentions raised on behalf of the respondents, this Court is of the considered view that the respondents have not wilfully disobeyed the order passed by this Court, on 4.4.2005, in W.P.No.11350 of 2005. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioners have been evicted from the land in question in violation of the order passed by this Court, on 4.4.2005. In such circumstances, the contempt petition stands closed. No costs.