THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR
CONTEMPT CASE No.875 of 2019
ORDER:-
The present Contempt Case is filed, under Sections
10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, for deliberate and
willful violation of the order dated 26.10.2018, passed in
W.P.No.946 of 2017, wherein this Court allowed the Writ
Petition and set aside the findings given by the Joint
Collector wherein the order passed in Execution Petition in
O.S.No.272 of 2000 was declared as bad in law.
2. It is to be noted here that the petitioner herein claims to
be an absolute owner, possessor and enjoyer of the land
admeasuring Ac.1.90 cents in Sy.Nos.49/1B and 81/2
situated at Pothepalli Village, Machilipatnam Mandal,
Krishna District, having obtained a regular Sale Deed,
through a decree in O.S.No.272 of 2000, which was filed for
Specific Performance of Agreement of Sale, against one
Vemula Satyavathi, who obtained her title through a
registered Gift Deed dated 26.02.1985, executed by her
husband Vemula Satyavathi. Though, the husband of
Vemula Satyavathi obtained land on payment by way of
instalments, respondent no.4 issued Form-II notice under
Rule-3 of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Land (Prohibition of Transfer) Rules, 2007 on the ground that the transfer of land 2 CPK, J C.C.No.875 of 2019 was in contravention of the Provisions of the enactment. After considering the explanation submitted, an order came to be passed on 22.07.2015 holding that the sale is in contravention of enactment. Aggrieved by the said order, the Petitioner preferred an appeal before the respondent no.3 therein, which was dismissed on 01.02.2016. The Revision filed by the petitioner was also dismissed, against which, a Writ Petition was filed.
3. After considering the material on record and the orders passed by the Civil Court and other documents, a learned Single Judge held as under:-
"12. In the instant case, the assignment was by way of consideration, which is evident from the judgment of the civil Court. Apart from that, the plea taken by the revenue authorities in this writ petition is that the petitioner has suppressed the fact of assignment also appears to be incorrect for the reason that in O.S.No.203 of 1991, the vendor of the petitioner, specifically pleaded and referred to the assignment made in favour of her husband and in the said suit, the Government of Andhra Pradesh was a party. Therefore, they cannot now say that the petitioner has suppressed the fact of assignment before the civil Court. The suit filed by V. Satyavathi was decreed earlier in point of time and the same was confirmed in the appeal. That being the position, it cannot be said that the petitioner has suppressed the fact of assignment in subsequent suit, since the findings in O.S.No.203 of 1991 have become final by then. Having regard to the above, the question of non-disclosure of the said fact in O.S.No.272 of 2000 would not arise. In view of the findings of the civil Court, the findings of the authorities appear to be prima facie incorrect. Hence, the findings given by the Joint Collector that the order in 3 CPK, J C.C.No.875 of 2019 execution petition in O.S.No.272 of 2000 as null and void cannot be accepted.
13. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs."
4. Challenging the same, W.A.No.454 of 2019 came to be filed by the State. In I.A.No.02 of 2019, a Division Bench of this Court passed the following order:-
"After considering the rival submissions of both the parties, we deem it appropriate to direct all actions in respect of the suit land shall abide by the result of the appeal.
With the above direction, the I.A. is allowed."
5. The present Contempt Case came to be filed, before passing of the order by the Division Bench, mainly on the ground that the alleged contemnors herein have not implemented the orders passed in W.P.No.946 of 2017, meaning thereby that the name of the Petitioner was not mutated in the revenue records, apart from issuing title deeds and Pattadar Pass Book in respect of the said property.
6. A counter came to be filed on 17.12.2019 by the Tahsildar, Machilipatnam, disputing the averments made in the affidavit filed, in support of the Contempt Case. According to him, he assumed charge as Tahsildar on 13.02.2019 and thereafter during General Elections, he was appointed as Assistant Returning Officer, Machilipatnam Assembly Constituency. According to him, he has verified all 4 CPK, J C.C.No.875 of 2019 the previous records for taking appropriate steps, to protect the land which was classified as vacant lands in revenue records. It was further stated that he has addressed a letter to District Collector, Krishna, seeking necessary instructions for implementation of the order. According to him, the District Collector is said to have advised him to prefer Writ Appeal.
7. The counter also discloses that earlier Writ Petition No.2280 of 1999 was filed by one Vemula Satyavathi, for deletion of the land from the list of assigned lands which was rejected on 09.07.2003. The counter filed also shows that pending W.P.No.2280 of 1999, a suit for Specific Performance of Agreement of Sale, dated 12.10.1995, was filed seeking a direction to the defendants to execute a Registered Sale Deed in respect of property in the said suit. The said suit was decreed with costs directing the defendants to execute a Sale Deed in favour of plaintiff within a period of two months. One Pallem Lakshmi Vara Prasad filed E.P.No.21 of 2008 without disclosing the order passed in W.P.No.2280 of 2019, before the Tahsildar, Machilipatnam claiming an extent of Ac.1.90 cents in R.S.No.49-1B, 81-2 in Pothepalli Village of Machilipatnam. It is said that the request made by Pallem Lakshmi Vara Prasad, for mutation of his name in Revenue records and for issuance of Pattadar Pass Book, was rejected with an endorsement that the land referred to above is an 5 CPK, J C.C.No.875 of 2019 assigned land. The record also refers to filing of O.S.No.203 of 1991 wherein the land was assigned for consideration and the consideration in D-Form Patta was paid by the plaintiff's husband, and as such, the assignment cannot be cancelled by the Government. The order passed in O.S.No.203 of 1991 was challenged by the Government in A.S.No.101 of 1994, but the same was dismissed. Various other issues came to be raised in the counter filed, which are as under:-
"11. It is submitted that the Hon‟ble appellate court up held the order of the trial court but observed that the sum paid by the assignee as market value of the land and the government cannot resume the land. The Hon‟ble Court has not been apprised of the difference between the „sum‟ collected on allotment of ceiling surplus land and Market value collected for allotting Government lands to corporations, companies societies and individuals.
Though the suit was decreed against the Government, the land vests with the legal heirs of the assignee, as the case was disposed on the question fact whether the land was brought under cultivation or not. Therefore, it will not have impact on other cases. Incorporation of the name of the deceased‟s (assignees) wife i.e., Smt. Vemula Satyavathi itself has no impact. The A.S.No.101/94 was not challenged and it has become final.
12. It is submitted that Sri Pallem Lakshmi Vara Prasad filed a suit against Smt. Vemula Satyavathi in O.S.No.272/2000 before Principal Senior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam. The Government was not a party in the suit. Sri Pallem Lakshmi Varaprasad got favourable orders in O.S.No.272/2000 and E.P.No.21/2008 and got registered vide sale deed document No.3285/2009. In the circumstances, it is submitted that the Government (Revenue) is not a party to the suit in O.S.No.272/2000 it is not binding on the Government.
14. It is submitted that the petitioner and the legal heir of the assignee Smt. Vemula Satyavathi played fraud on the Revenue Authorities hiding the orders of the Hon‟ble High Court orders issued in 6 CPK, J C.C.No.875 of 2019 W.P.No.2280/1999, dated 09.01.2003 in various lower courts and obtained favour orders in favourable of her and basing on the lower court orders, the petitioner succeeded to get favourable orders in W.P.No.946/2017, dated 26.10.2018.
I hereby submit that I have got highest regard for the orders of the Hon‟ble Court and I have not intentionally violated the orders of the Hon‟ble High Court in W.P.No.946/2017, dated 26.10.2018 except for the reasons explained above and to take appropriate steps to protect the land which was classified as assigned land."
8. However, the learned Government Pleader placed on record material to show that the orders of this Court has been complied with by incorporating the name of the Petitioner in the revenue records and also issuing the Pattadar Pass Book in favour of the petitioner. But, the grievance of the petitioner is that the land is still shown as Government Land and it is not deleted from the Prohibitory List.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that since the land is still shown as Government Land, the petitioner will not be in a position to enjoy the same as he cannot obtain any loans for development of the said land. He further submits that implementation of the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.946 of 2017 would be completed only when the land is deleted from the Prohibitory List.
7
CPK, J C.C.No.875 of 2019
10. To this, learned Government Pleader would submit that there is no bar for obtaining any loans from the bank since nothing prevents the bank from advancing loans. According to him, without making any effort, the petitioner is making a bald statement about non-granting of loans by the Banks.
11. Be that as it may, learned Government Pleader would contend that even accepting the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner to be true, it would only amount to a fresh cause of action, for which, he may have to file a fresh Writ Petition. Even otherwise, learned Government Pleader contends that it may not be proper to delete the same from the Prohibitory List at this stage, having regard to the order passed in Writ Appeal.
12. At this stage, a suggestion fell from the Government Pleader that necessary directions as sought for by the petitioner may be given, if the petitioner gives an undertaking that he will not alienate the land. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions states that his client is not willing to give any undertaking.
13. It is no doubt true that the land is still shown in Prohibitory List, but as the name of the petitioner is mutated in the revenue records, Pattadar Pass Book and title deeds are also issued to the petitioner and in view of the order in I.A.No.02 of 2019 in W.A.No.454 of 2019, it cannot be said 8 CPK, J C.C.No.875 of 2019 that there was any deliberate and willful violation of the order passed by this Court.
14. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is dismissed.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________________ JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR Date:13.04.2022 MS 9 CPK, J C.C.No.875 of 2019 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR CONTEMPT CASE No.875 of 2019 Date:13.04.2022 MS