THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY
CONTEMPT CASE No.977 of 2020
ORDER:
This Contempt Case is filed alleging willful disobedience of the order dated 10.08.2020 passed by this Court in W.P.No.12068 of 2020.
The petitioner herein filed the afore-stated writ petition aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents in conducting survey of the subject land and demarcating the land in spite of submitting an application dated 10.05.2013. This Court, by order dated 10.08.2020, has passed the following order:
"In view of the above, the present writ petition is allowed in terms of the common order, dated 28.04.2016, passed in W.P.No.4811 of 2011 and batch. The petitioner is directed to make F-line application through online before respondent No.4-the Tahasildar seeking sub-division of the survey number and pay the requisite fee through mee-seva, within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if not already made. On such application being made, the respondents are directed to complete the survey/sub-division/demarcation, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is needless to mention that the petitioner, as well as the neighbouring landowners will be put on notice before undertaking any survey, and take into account the work memos, if any, filed by any of the parties."
Alleging that the said order has not been implemented by the respondent authorities, the present Contempt Case is filed.
Respondent No.1 has filed a counter affidavit stating that pursuant to the order, dated 10.08.2020, passed by this Court, the 2 Mandal Surveyor has issued notices to all the concerned parties on 01.10.2020 duly informing the petitioner and the neighbouring pattadars, that the survey will be conducted on 09.10.2020. The adjacent pattadars namely T.R.Venkatesh and Rajeshwar Reddy have filed their objection petitions for conducting survey stating that they are in possession of the subject land. As the adjacent pattadars have not allowed the authorities to conduct survey and both the parties are claiming possession over the land in survey No.561, the Mandal Surveyor could not conduct the survey as directed by this Court on 10.08.2020. In fact, one of the neighbouring land owners viz., T.R.Venkatesh has also filed a criminal complaint vide F.I.R. No.287/2020 in P.S. Shamirpet alleging that the petitioner herein has damaged the kaddi stones and fencing of property which is in his possession. Thus, there is a serious dispute of possession in respect of the subject land. In those circumstances, the survey could not be conducted by the Mandal Surveyor and absolutely there is no willful disobedience on the part of the official respondents. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the Contempt Case.
Heard Sri Rapolu Bhaskar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has submitted a letter dated 09.09.2020 along with copy of the order dated 10.08.2020 to the respondents with a request to implement the order of this Court. Despite the same, the respondents failed to obey the order of by this Court, instead, the 3 respondent No.1 issued a memo vide Lr.No.B/733/2020, dated 06.11.2020, disputing the possession of the petitioner over the subject land, ignoring the documents filed by the petitioner in support of his claim for possession. Hence, the respondents are liable for punishment for disobeying the order, dated 10.08.2020, passed by this Court.
Per contra, the learned Government Pleader has contended that there is a serious dispute and counter claims with regard to possession over the subject land. Due to the objections taken by the person in possession of the subject lands, the Mandal Surveyor could not conduct survey and that there is no willful disobedience on the part of the respondents herein in implementing the order dated 10.08.2020 passed by this Court. That the official respondents have followed the procedure contemplated under the provisions of the Telangana Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923, and the circulars issued from time to time; having found that the petitioner is not in possession of the subject lands, the authorities have issued the memo stating that the survey cannot be conducted. There are no merits in the Contempt Case and the same is liable to be dismissed.
Perused the record.
The only question involved in this contempt case is whether the contemnors have deliberately and willfully disobeyed the order of this Court passed in W.P.No.12068 of 2020, dated 10.08.2020, or not?
4
This Court vide order, dated 10.08.2020, passed in W.P.No.12068 of 2020, has directed the respondents to conduct the survey and demarcate the land of the petitioner by sub- dividing the same on the application made by him. As per the averments made in the petition and the counter, it is not disputed that the official respondents failed to take any steps to conduct the survey and demarcate the lands of the petitioner by sub-dividing the same. The petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that the respondents have issued the memo, dated 06.11.2020, vide Lr.No.B/733/2020, stating that the persons in actual possession are disputing the possession of the petitioner over the subject lands and have opposed the survey itself.
A reading of the report sent by the Mandal Surveyor to the Tahsildar, Muduchinthalapally Mandal, reveals that pursuant to the order of this Court, the official respondents have issued notices to all the concerned persons for survey and sub-division of the subject lands on 01.10.2020 and also the neighbouring land owners and that the survey will be conducted on 09.10.2020. That, when the Mandal Surveyor went to the subject lands on 09.10.2020 to conduct the survey and demarcate the lands, the neighbouring land owners namely T.R.Venkatesh and Rajeshwar Reddy have objected for the survey on the ground that the petitioner is not in physical possession of the land and did not allow the survey to be conducted. Based on the report of the Mandal Surveyor, the Tahsildar has issued the Memo, dated 06.11.2020, stating that the petitioner is not in physical possession. The said memo is issued basing on the Circular issued by the Commissioner, Survey & Land Records, the 5 requirement of the petitioner for sub-division of Sy.No.561 of Koltur village cannot be considered. Even though the learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the issuance of the memo by the respondents amounts to deliberate and willful disobedience of the order of this Court and that the petitioner is in physical possession of the lands as evidenced by the Pattedar Pass Book and Title Deed and other records, the fact remains that the request of the petitioner for sub-division of survey number stood rejected by a speaking order passed by the authority. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the said memo, he is free to challenge the same and seek redressal of his grievance if he is so advised.
The Law on Contempt has been well established by catena of judgments of this Court as well as the Apex Court. Unless and until the Court comes to a conclusion that the respondents have deliberately and willfully violated the order passed by this Court, the question of punishing the respondents does not arise. In this particular case, the official respondents have taken all steps to implement the order of this Court passed in W.P.No.12068 of 2020, dated 10.08.2020, but due to the objections taken by the adjacent land owners, the survey could not be completed and the request of the petitioner was rejected. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the memo, dated 06.11.2020, rejecting his application for demarcation of Sy.No.561, he is at liberty to assail the correctness of the same either by way of an appeal or writ petition, but this Court in exercise of its contempt jurisdiction cannot go into the correctness or otherwise of the memo, dated 06.11.2020. The jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act can be invoked only if there is a willful or deliberate disobedience of the order passed. 6 In the absence of the same, the contempt has to fail. The official respondents have taken all necessary steps to implement the order of this Court, but for the reasons stated above, the same could not be completed. The official respondents have not done anything that would amount to willful or deliberate disobedience of the order of this Court.
In view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances, the Contempt Case is closed. This order does not preclude the petitioner from challenging the memo, dated 06.11.2020 vide Lr.No.B/733/2020, before the appropriate forum, if he is so advised.
Miscellaneous petitions pending in this writ petition, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
________________________ A.ABHISHEK REDDY, J Date :
sur/va