AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Chandru
The Writ Petition is filed seeking to challenge an order of the 1st respondent made in G.O (Nilai) No. 175 Revenue (Ni. Mu.11(1) Department,
dated 26.5.2009 and for a consequential direction to respondents to remove the obstructions illegally put up by the fourth respondent on the
property of the petitioner as well as the lease deed. By the impugned order, the State Government extended the lease in favour of the 4th
respondent in Survey No. 320/2C in Ambattur Taluk, Padi Village, Thiruvallur District in respect of Punjabi Waste Poramboke land to an extent
of 0.00.5 Hectares or 240 Sq.ft for setting up a painting shop with the lease amount of Rs. 6000/-. The lease was given fro a period of five years.
When the matter came up on 3.6.2009, this Court ordered Notice of Motion returnable by four weeks. In the meanwhile, the 4th respondent was
allowed to continue his activity only in the land allotted to him on lease. Subsequently, the interim order was extended by order dated 20.7.2010.
Thereafter, when the matter came up on 21.6.2010, the petitioner had filed two applications in M.P. No. 1 of 2010 for appointment of an
Advocate Commissioner and M.P. No. 3 of 2010 for impleading 5th and 6th respondents as party respondents and that application was ordered
on 25.10.2010. M.P. No. 2 of 2010 is filed by the State for vacating the interim order, supported by counter affidavit dated 13.9.2010. During
this period, interim order was extended from time to time. The 3rd respondent District Revenue Officer had also filed a counter affidavit dated
10.8.2010.
In the meanwhile, the petitioner filed a Contempt Petition seeking to punish the original 4th respondent for having committed contempt of court
for not obeying the order passed by this Court in M.P. No. 3 of 2009 dated 3.6.2009. Notice was directed to be taken by the counsel appearing
for the 4th respondent. On 7.6.2011, this Court directed the Inspector of Police, Ambattur, with the help of the Surveyor, to measure the land in
which the contesting respondent has put up construction, including the particulars relating to S. No. 1171/1 in Korattur Village.
On 11.11.2011, this Court appointed an Advocate Commissioner to submit a report. The Advocate Commissioner was directed to take the
assistance of Town Surveyor to identify the Survey Numbers and to measure a property with respect to Town Survey as well as Village Survey
Plan after giving notice to the parties. Subsequently, the order was modified on 9.12.2011 stating that the petitioner was unable to bear the
expenditure for measuring the land payable to the Advocate Commissioner. Therefore, both parties were directed to bear the remuneration
payable to the Advocate Commissioner equally and instead of Town Surveyor, Taluk Surveyor was directed to accommodate with the Advocate
Commissioner to inspect the property and file a report.
On 28.2.2012, this Court found that the Tahsildar, Ambattur was not cooperating with the Advocate Commissioner and he is not permitting the
Taluk Surveyor to measure the property. Therefore, a direction was given to the Tahsildar, Ambattur to provide all assistance to the Advocate
Commissioner in executing the warrant and also to direct the Taluk Surveyor to assist the Advocate Commissioner to measure the property.
The sole respondent in the contempt petition filed a counter affidavit dated 29.3.2011 and also filed an additional counter affidavit dated
6.6.2011. On 11.4.2012, when the Contempt Petition came up for hearing, this Court on finding that the Contempt arose out of the interim order,
directed the main Writ Petition to be posted along with the Contempt Petition. Accordingly the main Writ Petition was posted along with the
contempt petition.
Heard the argument of the learned counsel on both sides.
The very same petitioner subsequently filed a Writ Petition No. 14175 of 2010 seeking for a direction to the District Collector, Tiruvallur and
Commissioner of Ambattur Municipality to take appropriate action followed by the direction given by the Chennai Metropolitan Development
Authority in its letter dated 11.1.2010. After notice to the parties, this Court dismissed the Writ Petition by stating that the petitioner should
prosecute the earlier Writ Petition in W.P. No. 9910 of 2009 and if necessary to implead the proper parties.
In the counter affidavit filed by the District Revenue Officer, Tiruvellore dated 10.8.2010, in paragraphs 4 and 5, it was averred as follows:
the fourth respondent being a self employed and physically disabled person was granted a piece of land in the year 1997 for a period of one year.
Sine, the road widening work was being undertaken by that time, the further extension of renewal could not be considered and the fourth
respondent shop was evicted during 2000 for the purpose of road widening project. But, subsequently the fourth respondent has moved the
authorities for lease of remaining portion of land without affecting common interest and based on the recommendation of the Commissioner for
Rehabilitation the request of the 4th respondent was considered by the Government on humanitarian grounds. Further, the 4th respondent had
applied for humanitarian grounds. Further, the 4th respondent had applied for renewal of lease well within the time and as per the provisions
contained in G.O.Ms. No. 324/Revenue Department dated 10.9.2001 the 4th respondent was directed to pay the lease rent already in force as
per the proceedings of the 3rd respondent dated 14.8.2008 and the fourth respondent had also paid the lease rent already fixed by the
Government to keep the lease alive. Hence, there was no absence period between the date of expiry of lease and renewal as alleged by the
petitioner. Thus the ostensible purpose of the petitioner is to quash the proceedings of the Government but the real goal of the petitioner is different
which is known only to the petitioner.
5... The Government after careful examination of the proposals and considering the economic and physical status of the 4th respondent had fixed
the lease rent and also on the special grounds u/s 43 of Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995.
It is not clear as to how any order could be passed in a Contempt Petition when the petitioner has failed to establish his real case in the main
Writ Petition. In a Contempt Petition, this Court cannot go with the roving enquiry to find out the correctness of the order passed by the State
Government and only to take a decision on the basis of admitted facts. Therefore, the Contempt Petition is not maintainable and the petitioner in
the guise of contempt cannot ask for conducting a roving enquiry in order to establish the title to the properties. It is suffice that the 4th respondent
is armed with an order passed by the State Government for grant of lease of piece of land for the reasons set out therein and only when that
Government Order is set aside, the question of punishing the contesting respondent in the Contempt will arise. Only because the petitioner got
some exparte interim order which was extended from time to time, this Court is not inclined to punish the respondent in the Contempt Petition.
Hence, the Contempt Petition No. 1659 of 2010 stands dismissed. The Sub Application also stands closed.
In the main Writ Petition, the petitioner''s grievance is regarding the title over the property, which is allegedly owned by him and the only course
open to him is to file an appropriate Civil Suit against all the respondents including the private respondents. In the course of such proceedings, if he
is able to establish that he is owning the property and he is the title holder of the property, then the question of consequential direction involving the
G.O will arise. The parties are at variance with reference to the facts involved in the case. Hence, in the Writ Petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution such issues cannot be gone into. Hence, the Writ Petition stands dismissed by giving liberty to the parties to move the appropriate
Civil Court. In the result, the Writ Petition stands dismissed giving liberty to the petitioner to move the appropriate Civil Court. No costs. The
connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. The Contempt Petition No. 1659 of 2010 also stands dismissed. The Sub Application stands
closed.