KASTHURI Vs. P YUVARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE District Revenue Officer who has passed an order dated 31.08.2010 pursuant to the order passed by this Court in a batch of writ petitions in W.P.Nos.26310 to 26341 of 2008 dated 25.03.2009 is present before this Court.

(2.) THIS Court in a batch of writ petitions in in W.P.Nos.26310 to 26341 of 2008 dated 25.03.2009, while disposing of all the writ petitions and taking note of the fact in respect of the compensation regarding the lands acquired on the applications filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, the amount fixed by the Officer Rs.100/- per cent was increased to Rs.700/- per cent as against which the Government has filed an appeal in A.S.No.559 of 2002 in one case and this Court by judgment dated 27.11.2007, has enhanced the compensation at Rs.600/- per cent and directed the Special Tahsildar, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, who was arrayed as respondent in the above writ petitions to pass appropriate orders after conducting the enquiry regarding the re-determination of compensation based on the judgment of this Court in A.S.No.559 of 2002. Since in respect of the said order passed by this Court, the Special Tahsildar has not passed any order and hence, these contempt petitions have been filed.

(3.) THE learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that since in the said order dated 31.08.2010, the contents of the report of the Special Tahsildar has not been explained in detail and hence, the same has not been considered by the District Revenue Officer. However, he would further submit that the order dated 31.08.2010 passed by the District Revenue Officer would be withdrawn and a fresh order will be passed after considering the report of the Special Tahsildar and conducting an enquiry which is required to satisfy himself as to whether the persons who made applications are genuine and also getting the original statements, if necessary. In such view of the matter, since the District Revenue Officer has agreed and undertaken to withdraw the earlier order passed by him dated 31.08.2010, I do not think that any useful purpose will be served on initiating proceedings against him. However, the stand taken by the learned Additional Government Pleader that since the applications made by the parties are only xerox copies the doubt about the genuineness of the persons who made applications are certainly deserves to be considered.