Judgment : 1. This contempt petition has been filed against the respondents alleging that they have violated the interim order passed by this Court dated 21.12.2011 made in M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2011 in W.P.(MD).No.14678 of 2011. In this case, it is stated that the land comprised in S.Nos.88/1 and 89/1 at Sinthalapatti Village in Ottanchatram Taluk belongs to one Savadan Mathari, from whom one Nachammal purchased the same. Patta was also transferred in the name of Nachammal and it stood in the name of Nachammal for two decades. The land was also cultivated by Nachammal. 2. Apprehending that the respondents are trying to vacate him from the said property, he has filed the above writ petition. In the said writ petition, after hearing both parties, by an order dated 21.12.2011, this Court passed a direction to the effect that the respondents shall not interfere with the petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment, except due process of law. 3. Now, it is alleged that in violation of the order, the crops raised by the petitioner were all damaged. Thereafter, patta was issued to various persons and possession of the petitioner is disturbed. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has produced photographs of the damage caused to the crops such as chilly and onion. The petitioner, who is present in Court would submit that loss to the tune of Rs.2 lakhs has been caused by the people, who destroyed the crops. 5. The respondents 2 and 3, who are present before this Court would say that the land in question is a Panchamy land . Since the lands were sold in violation of the conditions of assignment, the second respondent passed an order cancelling the assignment, on 18.11.2011. However, the respondents would say that possession was not taken. 6. Today, when the matter is taken up, the respondents 2 and 3 are present and the present Village Administrative Officer by name Chellamuthu is also present. The second respondent has filed an affidavit, wherein in paragraphs No.5 and 6, he has stated as follows: “5. However, the respondents would say that possession was not taken. 6. Today, when the matter is taken up, the respondents 2 and 3 are present and the present Village Administrative Officer by name Chellamuthu is also present. The second respondent has filed an affidavit, wherein in paragraphs No.5 and 6, he has stated as follows: “5. It is humbly submitted that I am the Revenue Divisional Officer served at the time of passing of interim orders by the Honourable High Court and submitted that the petitioner was informed the fact of cancellation of assignment and the restoration of the land to its original status of Panchamar land on 02.12.2011 through the V.A.O. I had not issued any order to take over the possession of the land, since the land is restored as panchamar land. 6. I left Palani as Revenu Divisional Officer, Palani on 25.09.2012 and I am presently serving as General Manager/DRO, Tansi, Chennai and I have no personal interest over the land in question except the official interest. However, my humble submission is that if the Hon'ble Court feels that there is contempt in this case, I tender my unconditional apology and pray that I may kindly be pardoned.” 8. The third respondent, Mr.Tajudeen, Tahsildar has filed an affidavit, wherein in paragraph Nos.5 and 6, he has stated as follows: “5. It is humbly submitted that I am the Tahsildar worked at the time of passing of interim orders by this Honourable High Court and submitted that the petitioner was informed the fact of cancellation of assignment and the restoration of the land to its original status of Panchamar land on 02.12.2011 through the V.A.O. I had not issued any order to take over the possession of the land, since the land is restored as panchamar land on the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer. 6. I left Oddanchatram as Taluk Tahsildar on 01.02.2013 and I am presently serving as Huzur Sarishtadar (General), Collectorate, Dindigul and I have no personal interest over the land in question except the official interest. However, my humble submission is that if the Hon'ble Court feels that there is contempt in this case, once again I tender my unconditional apology and pray that I may kindly be pardoned.” 7. The fourth respondent Mr.Chellamuthu, Village Administrative Officer has filed an affidavit, wherein in paragraph Nos.5 and 6, he has stated as follows: “5. However, my humble submission is that if the Hon'ble Court feels that there is contempt in this case, once again I tender my unconditional apology and pray that I may kindly be pardoned.” 7. The fourth respondent Mr.Chellamuthu, Village Administrative Officer has filed an affidavit, wherein in paragraph Nos.5 and 6, he has stated as follows: “5. It is humbly submitted that I am the Village Administrative Officer of Sinthalapatti Revenue Village worked at the time of passing of interim orders by this Honourable High Court and submitted that the petitioner was informed the fact of cancellation of assignment and the restoration of the land to its original status of Panchamar land on 02.12.2011 through myself. I had not served any order to take over the possession of the land, on restoration of the land as panchamar land on the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer. 6. I left Sinthalapatti Revenue Village on 01.08.2013 and I am presently serving as Village Administrative Officer of Athikombai group revenue village, Oddanchatram Taluk and I have no personal interest over the land in question except the official interest. I will not disturb the enjoyment and possession of the present enjoyer till the vacation of the interim stay orders of the Honourable High Court. However, my humble submission is that if the Hon'ble Court feels that there is contempt in this case, once again I tender my unconditional apology and pray that I may kindly be pardoned.” 8. In view of the said statements that possession still remains with the petitioner and that the same would not be disturbed by the respondents until further orders from this Court in the writ petition, I am inclined to close the contempt petition. 9. The contempt petition is closed and the respondents are discharged. In respect of alleged damage to the crops, the petitioner is at liberty to initiate action against the persons, who committed the same.