THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
AND
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI
C.A.NO.1 OF 2020
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)
The present contempt appeal is arising out of the order dated
20.12.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.C.No.568 of
2019.
The undisputed facts of the case reveal that the respondents
before this court are the owners of agricultural land to the extent of Ac.9.02 guntas in Survey Nos.2544 and 2545 of Nizamabad Village and Mandal. A writ petition i.e., W.P.No.37859 of 2018 was preferred stating that the respondents therein were dispossessing the writ petitioners, who are agriculturists, a road was being constructed and material was being dumped on their land. This court has passed an interim order on 12.10.2018 restraining the respondents therein, including the present appellant, not to dispossess the writ petitioners without following the due process of law. Inspite of there being an order passed by the learned Single Judge, the writ petitioners were dispossessed (road was laid in part of the land) and in those circumstances, a contempt petition i.e., C.C.No.568 of 2019 was preferred. The learned Single Judge, after holding the present appellant guilty, has imposed a sentence of two weeks imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2,000/-.
Paragraphs 7 to 12 of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in C.C.No.568 of 2019 read as under:-
7. Thereafter, counter affidavit was filed on 31.10.2019 contending that certain work was taken up under Minor Irrigation -
Nizamabad District - Mission Kakatiya Phase-II, Mini Tank Bund, 2 Beautification and Improvements to Raghunatha Cheruvu in Nizamabad Village and Mandal and that the works were completed by 18.01.2017 itself. It is stated that in continuation of the completed work, the District Collector sanctioned development by way of beautification of the Tank and tenders were called and the work was entrusted to M/s. S.L.N.S. Engineering Construction, Saroornagar, Hyderabad vide agreement dt.06.07.2018. It is denied by the respondent that he had entered the land of the petitioners and made measurements for laying a road. He stated that on coming to know about the orders passed by this Court, he had issued directions to the executive agency i.e., the contractor and also to his subordinate i.e., the Deputy Executive Engineer not to enter the land. It is denied that any road was laid in the petitioners' land. It is further stated in para 10 that the respondent did not dispossess the petitioners from their land, but the executive agency started laying road in spite of specific direction by the respondent as well as the Deputy Executive Engineer through their letter dt.15.11.2018. It is also stated that the petitioners did not implead the contractor engaged by the respondent as a party respondent in this Contempt Case and unnecessarily impleaded the respondent.
8. From the facts narrated above, it is clear that there was Court order passed by this Court on 12.10.2018 in I.A.No.1 of 2018 in W.P.No.37859 restraining the respondents from interfering with the possession of the petitioners over the subject land without following the due process of law.
9. No application has been filed by the respondent to vacate the said order.
10. It is not in dispute that the contractor/executive agency engaged by the respondent is only an agent of the respondent and is only carrying out the work under the directions of the respondent. Any violation of the order passed by this Court by the contractor i.e., the agent, has to be treated as violation of the order passed by this Court by the respondent as well. The respondent admittedly knew about the interim order passed by this Court and therefore ought to have prevented the contractor from violating the order passed by this Court. The photographs filed by the petitioner clearly show that the land of the petitioners has been dug up and damaged and has been rendered unfit for agriculture to the extent to which the digging has occurred and road laying work has been undertaken. This is a blatant violation of the order passed by this Court.
11. The unconditional apology tendered by the respondent is not accepted for the reason that the respondent does not seem to 3 have any respect for the orders passed by the Court or private property rights of the citizens.
12. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is allowed and the respondent is sentenced to two weeks imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) which shall be paid within four weeks from today. The petitioner shall deposit subsistence allowance/batta at the rate of Rs.250/- (Rupees two hundred and fifty only) per day. The sentence of imprisonment imposed on the respondent is suspended for a period of four weeks.
At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant has stated before this court that the present appellant has attained the age of superannuation and no purpose is going to be served by sending him to jail. He has further stated that the fine amount be enhanced in the present contempt appeal and the order passed by the learned Single Judge in the contempt petition be modified by imposing fine. He has agreed for payment of Rs.50,000/- as fine on instructions.
Resultantly, the contempt appeal stands disposed of and the order passed by the learned Single Judge is modified. The present appellant is fined to the tune of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) and the same shall be paid within thirty days from today. The appellant, after depositing the fine, shall inform the same to the Registrar General of this court.
The miscellaneous applications pending in this appeal, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ ___________________________ P.MADHAVI DEVI, J 02.11.2021 JSU