S RAMAKRISHNAN Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the same person in both the writ petitions as well as in the contempt petition. THE petitioner first filed W.P.No.17067 of 2004 before this Court (Principal Bench) seeking to challenge G.O.Ms.No.70, Revenue Department, dated 30.1.2003 passed by the State Government as well as the consequential notices issued by the District Collector, dated 16.12.2003 and 14.2.2004 and to set aside the same.

(2.) EARLIER, the Government issued G.O.No.683, Revenue Department (L.A.-I(1), dated 21.7.1997 to the effect that the claimants in the land acquisition cases were not entitled for interest on the 30% solatium and 12% additional amount awarded under Section 23(1-A) and 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Special Commissioner and Commissioner for Land Administration was directed to instruct the District Collectors and Land Acquisition Officers to adhere to the said G.O. but subsequently on noting that the Supreme Court in Sunder -vs- Union of India reported in AIR 2001 SC 3516 = 2001 (4) CTC 434, the Government issued the revised G.O. vide G.O.Ms.No.70, Revenue Department, dated 30.1.2003 and permitted interest on the compensation and solatium and the earlier G.O. was cancelled. While doing so, in the impugned G.O. in paragraph 3, the Government ordered as follows:-

(3.) TAKING exception to the said action, the petitioner preferred contempt petition No.903 of 2007 seeking to punish the then District Collector, Thoothukudi and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thiruchendur. In that contempt petition, the respondents have filed a reply affidavit, dated 14.11.2007 justifying their action. It was also stated that the petitioner has corrected the certified copies of the order issued by this Court. In the meanwhile, challenging the order of suspension and the order refusing to permit the petitioner to retire, each dated 30.3.2007, the petitioners moved the Madurai Bench of this Court in W.P.(MD).No.3287 of 2007. That writ petition was directed to be transferred to the Principal Bench to be heard along with the earlier writ petition. Thus, it is before this Court.