Telangana High Court
Rachakonda Swamy, vs The Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy ... on 5 January, 2024
* THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR
+ Writ Appeal No.1786 of 2008 and C.C.No.1577 of 2014
% 05.01.2024
# Between:
W.A.No.1786 of 2008
Rachakonda Swamy & others Appellants
Vs.
The Joint Collector,
Ranga Reddy District & others. Respondents
C.C.No.1577 of 2014
Rachakonda Swamy & others Petitioners
Vs.
The Joint Collector,
Ranga Reddy District & others. Respondents
! Counsel for Appellants : Ms.M.SLK.Srutha Keerthi
(in W.A.No.1786 of 2008)
M.V.Durga Prasad
(in C.C.No.1577 of 2014)
^ Counsel for Respondents : Mr. M.V.Durga Prasad
(in W.A.No.1786 of 2008)
Ms.M.SLK.Srutha Keerthi
(in C.C.No.1577 of 2014)
<GIST:
> HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
1 2004 (2) ALD 419
2 (1996) 4 SCC 622
2
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR
Writ Appeal No.1786 of 2008 and C.C.No.1577 of 2014
COMMON JUDGMENT:
(Per the Hon'ble Sri JusticeN.V.Shravan Kumar) The appellant Nos.1 to 5 herein are the writ petitioners in W.P.No.8381 of 2005. Appellant Nos.6 to 8 herein are the legal representatives of deceased appellant No.1 and they are brought on record by order of this Court dated 01.11.2023 in I.A.No.1 of 2023 in W.A.No.1786 of 2008. The respondent Nos.1 to 4 remain intact in both Writ Appeal and the Writ petition.
2. Heard Ms.Mandhata Slk Srutha Keerthi, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr.M.V.Durga Prasad learned counsel for respondent No.4.
Facts in the Writ Appeal:
3. This intra Court appeal is filed against order dated 03.11.2008 of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition confirming the order dated 05.02.2005 of respondent No.1/Joint Collector who dismissed the 3 revision which is filed against order dated 17.01.2003 passed by respondent No.2/Revenue Divisional Officer setting aside purported succession orders. The writ petitioners are the appellants who claim as legal heirs of Late Rajaiah and Late Pentaiah, who are the original owners.
4. The petitioners submit that they have obtained a succession order dated 13.01.1999 issued by respondent No.3/Mandal Revenue Officer for which no record is available. The dispute pertains to Ac.3-11 gts of land in Sy.No.286 of Gajularamaram Village, Quthbullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. It is the case of the petitioners that the subject lands are claimed by the petitioners, who are the successors of late Rajaiah and late Pentaiah, who were the original owners of the property and by virtue of succession, the petitioners/appellants have become lawful owners of the property.
5. Respondent No.4/Association submits that they have purchased properties through registered sale deeds executed by General Power of Attorney of late Rajaiah. It is 4 the common case that by order dated 13.01.1999, a purported succession order was passed by respondent No.3/Mandal Revenue Officer, Qutbullapur Mandal and consequently pattadar passbook and title deeds were issued in favour of the petitioners. Thereafter, respondent No.4/Association along with 33 others have filed representation on 29.01.2000 before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy District requesting him to cancel pattadar passbooks and title deeds issued by respondent No.3 and instructed him to demarcate the plots. Thereafter, respondent No.3 addressed a letter dated 28.03.2000 to respondent No.2 with a request to take action for cancellation of pattadar passbook and title deeds issued in favour of petitioners. Thereafter, respondent No.2 treated the representation filed by respondent No.4/Association as appeal and had set aside the succession order dated 13.01.1999 and also cancelled pattadar passbooks and title deeds dated 17.01.2003 and thereafter revision petitions filed by petitioners before respondent No.1 was dismissed vide order dated 5 05.02.2005. Questioning the said two orders, the writ petition in W.P.No.8381 of 2005 was filed.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the land in question ceased to be an agricultural land by the time of alteration of record of rights, the jurisdiction of respondent No.2 was ousted and consequently order passed by him was without jurisdiction. He would further submit that no appeal was filed by respondent No.4/Association against the succession order passed in favour of petitioners and that respondent No.2 ought not to have entertained the representation made by respondent No.4 and letter dated 28.03.2000 addressed by respondent No.3 by treating them as appeal and set aside the orders passed by respondent No.3 in favour of petitioners granting succession and also issuance of pattadar passbooks and title deeds. He would further submit that no appeal against an order granting pattadar passbooks and title deeds lies to respondent No.2 and that the finding of respondent No.2 that the land ceased to be an agricultural land was based on disputed documents and hence such a finding is unsustainable.
6
7. Respondent No.4 opposed the said contentions and submitted that passing of succession order in favour of the appellants itself was patently illegal because by that time, the land in question seems to be an agricultural land denuding respondent No.3 of his jurisdiction in view of the definition of "land" under Section 2(4) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbook Act, 1971 (for short 'the Act' hereinafter) and it was further submitted that issuance of pattadar passbooks is an act consequential to the passing of succession order under Section 5(3) of the Act and as held by this Court in N.Bal Reddy v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad 1, the action of issuance of pattadar passbooks as a consequence of succession order is amenable to the appellate jurisdiction under Section 5(5) of the Act.
8. Learned Single Judge has carefully considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and after perusal of the record had framed three points for consideration viz., 1 2004 (2) ALD 419 7
(i) Whether respondent No.2 had jurisdiction to decide the question raised by respondent No.4.
(ii) Whether an appeal lay against the order passed by respondent No.3 in favour of the petitioners and if the answer is affirmative, whether respondent No.2 was legally justified in treating the representation made by respondent No.4 / Association and others as an appeal, and
(iii) Whether the order passed by respondent No.2 on merits and as affirmed by respondent No.1 suffers from any illegality warranting interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
9. As regards point (i), learned Single Judge held that the plea of the learned counsel for the petitioners is self- defeating. If the land ceased to be an agricultural land even by the time of alteration of record of rights at the instance of the petitioners by respondent No.3, the latter is denuded of his jurisdiction to entertain the application for amendment of record of rights and, consequently, his action was without jurisdiction. The issuance of pattadar passbooks on the strength of such amendment would be 8 equally without jurisdiction. Respondent No.2 is, therefore, entitled to entertain the appeal filed against the order of respondent No.3 and correct this jurisdictional error. Therefore, point (i) was accordingly answered against the petitioners.
10. With regard to point (ii), the learned Single Judge held that the order dated 13.01.1999 i.e., order of succession was passed in favour of petitioners but the copy of the same had not been filed. However, after passing of such order, members of respondent No.4/Association approached respondent No.3 with an application to supply a copy of the said order. However, respondent No.2 specifically observed that the file relating to succession order was not available in the office of respondent No.3. Learned Single Judge further observed that being the beneficiaries of the said order, the burden lies on the petitioners to produce the copy of the said order.
11. Learned Single Judge further observed that since the order dated 13.01.1999 was not supplied to respondent No.4/Association, they were deprived from filing a formal 9 appeal questioning the said order. The learned Single Judge observed that though a form and limitation are prescribed under the Rules to avail the remedy of appeal, in the absence of supply of the copy of the order, respondent No.4 could not have filed a formal appeal. In such situation, learned Single Judge considered that the substance is more than the form, which is relevant in exercising his appellate jurisdiction, when a patent illegality was brought to his notice and held that respondent No.2 was justified in treating the representation made on behalf of respondent No.4 as an appeal.
12. With regard to Point (iii), learned Single Judge observed that from the order passed by respondent No.2, it can be seen that he has set aside the order passed by respondent No.3 in favour of petitioners on the ground that the record made available before him showed that before 13.01.1999, the date on which the purported succession order passed in favour of petitioners, the land was ceased to be an agricultural land and therefore, respondent No.3 had no jurisdiction to entertain the application of the 10 petitioners for grant of succession/amendment of Record of Rights. Learned Single Judge further observed that respondent No.2 relied on several documents, such as, Xerox copies of pahanies, sale deeds, copy of layout plan etc., to show that the land was converted into house plots and sold. That apart, respondent No.2 also placed reliance on the orders passed in I.A.Nos.24, 25 and 26 of 1997 in O.S.No.6 of 1997 filed by the petitioners against the alleged GPA holder, by name, Sri D.Brahma Chary and their co- sharer R.Pentaiah. Learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously contended that the description of land as plots in various documents produced by respondent No.4 ought not to have weighed with respondent No.2 in concluding that the land has ceased to be an agricultural land.
13. The documents produced by respondent No.4/Association to show that the land was converted into residential plots long before passing of order dated 13.01.1999 and thereby ousting the jurisdiction of respondent No.3 to entertain an application under the provisions of the Act. As such respondent No.2 did not 11 commit any illegality. Section 2(4) of the Act defines the "land" as under:
"Land" means land which is used or is capable of being used for purposes of agriculture, including horticulture but does not include land used exclusively for non-agricultural purposes."
14. Learned Single Judge considering the said contentions held that the documents produced before respondent No.2 were sufficient to conclude that the subject land has ceased to be an agricultural land and if the petitioners seriously dispute the validity of the registered sale deeds, the only remedy available to the petitioners is to file a civil suit under Specific Relief Act, 1963 for declaration of their title and if any such relief is granted in favour of the petitioners, they can assert their right and make fresh application for amendment of Record of Rights and issuance of pattadar passbooks under Sections 4 and 6A of the Act respectively.
15. Learned Single Judge after considering all the above aspects was of the view that order passed by respondent No.2 as confirmed by respondent No.1 did not 12 suffer from any illegality warranting interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and accordingly writ petition was dismissed.
16. In the grounds raised in the appeal, it is urged that in terms of Section 2(4) of the Act, the learned Single Judge ought to have held that both the appellate authority and revisional authority were also denuded of the jurisdiction to hold so.
17. Learned counsel for respondent No.4/Association would submit that order granting succession by respondent No.3 is wholly without jurisdiction and subject land is not "land" within the meaning of Section 2(4) of the Act and that remedy for the petitioners would lie only before the Civil Court. Since, the order of Mandal Revenue Officer has not been supplied, respondent No.4/Association were deprived of the opportunity of filing the appeal and the orders passed by respondent No.2 was justified in treating the representation made by respondent No.4/Association as an appeal. He would further submit that arguments of the writ petitioners itself is self-defeating 13 and the entire burden lies on the petitioners to produce the order of Mandal Revenue Officer.
18. Learned counsel would further submit that pattadars and appellants entered into agreement of sale with one D.Brahma Chary who was registered General Power of Attorney Holder and as per the layout of Gram Panchayat, the subject lands were sold to pattadars which is being purchased by members of respondent No.4/Association through General Power of Attorney holder and that the pahanies also show the nature of land as plots. He would further submit that O.S.No.6 of 1997 was filed by the petitioners against D.Brahma Chary and one of their predecessors late Pentaiah for partition, separate possession and perpetual injunction and the said suit was dismissed for non-prosecution on 23.01.2006 and I.A.Nos.24 and 25 of 1997 in the said O.S.No.6 of 1997 filed for grant of interim injunction were dismissed on merits. The succession order issued by respondent No.3 in favour of appellants was given during the pendency of the suit but no record of succession order was available and that on 28.03.2000 a letter was issued from Mandal 14 Revenue Officer to Revenue Divisional Officer stating that the earlier Mandal Revenue Officer wrongly sanctioned succession of the land in favour of the petitioners and action shall be taken for the same. Thereafter, Revenue Divisional Officer had set aside the order of Mandal Revenue Officer and cancelled the pattadar passbooks and title deeds as the land was non-agriculture, before Mandal Revenue Officer order and found that succession file was not available in the Mandal Office and thereafter the Joint Collector vide proceedings dated 05.02.2005 has dismissed the revision petition as the land has been sold out duly making plots by the original pattadars long back.
Facts in the Contempt Case No.1577 of 2014:
19. The petitioner who is respondent No.4 in the writ appeal has filed this Contempt Case stating that the respondents have deliberately and wilfully violated the status quo order dated 26.12.2008 passed in W.A.M.P.No.3490 of 2008 in W.A.No.1786 of 2008. It is submitted that subsequent to the status quo orders passed on 26.12.2008, M/s.Canara Bank, Basheer Bagh Branch 15 has issued public notice on 04.09.2012 in Andhra Jyothi, Telugu Daily Newspaper stating that Ac.1-20 gts in Sy.No.286 (Part) of Gajularamaram Village was put to sale under Securitization And Reconstructions of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and that the auction will be conducted on 03.10.2012. After enquiry, petitioner came to know that the other part of the land was also mortgaged to Bank of India, Basheerbagh branch. Thereafter petitioner herein made representations to both the Banks to defer from the proposed auction to be held on 03.10.2012.
20. Thereafter the said Bank has conducted the auction but could not sell the property as prospective purchasers came to know about the previous sales made in favour of members of the petitioner Association and that the land was the subject matter of the above W.A.No.1786 of 2008. Thereafter, petitioner made enquiries and found that the respondents are wilfully and deliberately violating the status quo order and alienated the entire extent of Ac.3-11 gts., Gajularamaram Village, Quthbullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. It is further submit that 16 this Court, at the time of admission of the Writ Appeal, has passed the following status quo order on 26.12.2008, which is extracted hereunder:
"Heard both sides.
All through during the pendency of the writ petition, the orders of status quo were in force. Therefore, status quo obtaining as on today shall be maintained until further orders."
21. Subsequent to the passing of the status quo order by this Court on 26.12.2008, the following sale deeds were alienated:
Sl.No. Doc. No. and Date Vendors Purchaser
1. 698/2011 dt.22.01.2011 Respondent B.Prasad Registered Deed of Nos.4 & 5 Reddy Cancellation
2. 5107/2010 dt.21.06.2010 Respondent Satya Registered sale deed Nos.1 to 3 Telecom Private Ltd.,
3. 851/2011 dt.27.01.2011 Respondent Satya Registered sale deed Nos.4 & 5 & Telecom three others. Private Ltd.,
22. It is submitted that entire extent of land in Ac.03- 11 gts., was sold between the years 1988 to 2000 itself. It is further submitted that respondent Nos.1, 3 to 5 having violated the orders of this Court, on 11.10.2008 has trespassed into the land of the petitioner Association and 17 thereby again deliberately and wilfully violated the orders of this Court. The petitioner further submits that respondent No.6 who worked as Mandal Revenue Officer and having knowledge of the above writ appeal i.e., W.A.No.1786 of 2008 and the status quo order granted by this Court has deliberately and wilfully violated the orders of this Court and issued pattadar passbooks and title deeds with Patta Nos.813 and 812 to respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein respectively in the year 2010 ignoring the fact that Pattadar passbooks and title deeds granted earlier were cancelled and are subject matter of the present writ appeal.
23. The petitioner therefore submits that there is continuous cause of action at every point of time and the respondents have wilfully and deliberately violated the orders of this Court and as such the present Contempt Case is filed.
24. A common counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 5 and while denying the allegations made in the Contempt Case, respondent Nos.1 to 5 submits that the alienations were made by the 18 respondents in the year 2007 even before status quo was passed in the year 2007 and therefore respondents have not violated the order of this Court dated 26.12.2008 passed in W.A.M.P.No.3490 of 2008 in W.A.No.1786 of 2008 and that the registration of the document No.521/2007 dated 13.07.2007 itself is a notice to the petitioner and that the petitioner did not bring it to the notice of this Court at the time of grant of interim order and the respondents have nothing to do with the subsequent alienations made by the subsequent purchasers. It is further submitted that there is no status quo granted in respect of the said property with regard to mutation of names in the records and dispossessing the petitioner from the property and that the petitioner though having knowledge having knowledge about the alleged sales, filed this Contempt Case by giving incoherent reasons and that the petitioner having knowledge about the sales did not raise any objection at the time of grant of interim orders till the year 2014.
25. Respondent No.6 has filed an affidavit and would submit that he worked as a Deputy Collector and Tahsildar 19 of Quthbullapur Mandal during the period 19.03.2010 to 22.09.2011 and would state that neither the petitioner nor respondent Nos.1 to 5 has brought to his notice about the orders of this Court passed in W.A.M.P.No.3490 of 2008 in W.A.No.1786 of 2008. He would further submit that the pattadar passbooks and title deeds in respect of Ac.01-25 gts., in Sy.No.286 of Gajularamaram Village for ½ share of late R.Pentaiah were issued to respondent Nos.4 and 5 as successors of late R.Pentaiah based on the report of the Mandal Revenue Inspector and as the dead person's name should not be continued in records, by following procedure contemplated under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act and by following Rule 18 of A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Rules, 1989. It is further submitted that the file did not disclose any representations and the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer and the Joint Collector and the records also did not disclose the names of the members of petitioner Association to send notices as interested persons.
26. The respondent No.6 submits that he has no knowledge of the status quo order dated 26.12.2008 and 20 has issued pattadar passbooks based on the report of Mandal Revenue Inspector incorporating successors and he has not received any objections from any interested party and individuals in response to the notice issued in Form - VIII under Rule 19(I) of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Rules and as such issued pattadar passbooks recording succession. This Court on 20.04.2005 in W.P.M.P.No.11096 of 2005 in W.P.No.8381 of 2005 passed the following order:
"Notice.
Learned Government Pleader appearing for R.1 to R.3 and Sri M.Durga Prasad who entered appearance for R.6 seeks time for filing counter.
Post after summer vacation 2005.
In the meanwhile, status quo obtaining as on today as to the nature and possession of the land in question shall be maintained."
27. A common reply affidavit was filed by petitioner in which it is submitted that at the time of admission of the writ petition, this Court was pleased to grant status quo in W.P.M.P.No.11096 of 2005 in W.P.No.8381 of 2005 on 20.04.2005 and the same was continued during the 21 pendency of the writ appeal. It is further submitted that the respondents have deliberately and wilfully violated the orders of this Court falsely stating that they have already alienated the property under registered sale deeds and has reiterated the submissions made in the Contempt Case.
Analysis and Conclusion in both W.A.No.1786 of 2008 and C.C.No.1577 of 2014:
28. The subject matter of the writ petition pertains to the orders passed by respondent No.2 dated 17.01.2003 which has been confirmed by orders passed by respondent No.1 dated 05.02.2005. Respondent No.4/Association herein is the petitioner before respondent No.2 who vide order dated 17.01.2003 allowed the petition. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioners/appellants herein filed a revision petition before the Joint Collector i.e., respondent No.1 herein.
29. In the order dated 17.01.2003, the Special Grade Deputy Collector and Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy East Division held that as per the certified copy of the pahani, the land in Sy.No.286 (Ac.3-11 gts.) of 22 Gajularamaram stands patta in the name of Chakali Rajaiah. That the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer unequivocally proves that the lands were being used for non-agricultural uses. It appears that the pattadar Rajaiah, his brother Pentaiah along with their sons together entered into agreement of sale in favour of D.Brahma Chary S/o. Ramulu on 31.12.1987 and a layout plan for 56 plots was prepared and got approved in respect of the suit land.
29.1. In pursuance of the agreement of sale entered through the GPA holders, plots admeasuring 200 sq.yds., each were sold to the members of the petitioner/society therein in the years 1989 to 1996. The appellants have filed a suit in O.S.No.6 of 1997 on the file of District Munsif at Medchal against half share pattadar i.e., R.Pentaiah S/o. Muthaiah and the agreement holders D.Brahma Chary. The District Munsiff held that the petition schedule land was already sold to several persons and no explanation was given by the petitioners regarding the execution of power of attorney and unless an elaborate trial is conducted, it is not possible to come to a conclusion 23 with respect to the possession of the property. However, the respondents did not challenge the above orders of the District Munsiff and the same has become final but the main suit was still pending.
29.2. Thereafter, on the death of Chakali Rajaiah, the original pattadar, his sons and others moved a petition before the Mandal Revenue Officer, Quthbullapur for sanction of succession and the Mandal Revenue Officer vide his proceedings No.A/3621/98 dated 13.01.1999 granted succession of the land in favour of Pentaiah and his three sons in equal shares. However, the same is not available in the Mandal Office. The Mandal Revenue Officer in his report dated 28.03.2000 called for on the representation of the plot owners and informed that before the receipt of objection petition dated 18.01.1999 the succession orders and pattadar passbooks/title deeds were issued and requested to take further action for cancellation of pattadar passbooks and title deeds. The representation dated 29.01.2000 of the appellants and on the basis of the report of Mandal Revenue Officer, the case was taken on file as an appeal. It was further observed that the 24 appellants were not a party to the succession orders and as such there was no possibility for them to file an appeal within limitation when the pattadar passbooks were issued. Therefore, when their substantial rights were being affected, the trivial issues such as filing appeal in a proper format can be ignored moreso, when his predecessor in office has taken case on file as an appeal.
29.3. The Revenue Divisional Officer/respondent No.2 further held that while considering the definition of "land" under Section 2(4) of the Act held that on the date of passing succession order dated 13.01.1999, the land in question herein was no more agricultural land for which the provisions of the Act is made applicable and that succession orders dated 13.01.1999 passed under Section 5(3) of the Act are not sustainable under law, particularly, when the land was already sold out as observed in the District Munsiff orders dated 17.01.1998 in I.A.Nos.24 and 25 of 1997 in O.S.No.6 of 1997 and also as per the copies of registered sale deed executed by pattadar from the year 1989 to 1996. Accordingly, the petition filed by the appellant society was allowed and the succession orders 25 passed by Mandal Revenue Officer in File No.A/3671/98 dated 13.01.1999 are set aside and the pattadar passbooks/title deeds issued to the respondents in pursuance of the Mandal Revenue Officer are also cancelled for which the Mandal Revenue Officer, Quthbullapur shall take necessary action in the matter.
30. For better appreciation of facts and for consideration of the issues in the present writ appeal, the order of the Joint Collector dated 05.02.2005, is extracted hereunder for ready reference:
"Perused the material papers available on record. It is seen that the land has been sold out duly making house plots the original Pattadars long back. A Civil Suit in O.S.No.6 of 1997 on file of the District Munsif at Medchal is pending for partition of the properties filed by the petitioners herein. The observations in V.Goutham Rao Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, Jagital, 2003 (1) ALT 615 in Para 12 at Page 619 are illuminating:
"Under sub-section(2) of section 8 of the Act, it is specifically contemplates that any persons aggrieved as to any rights of which he is in possession by any entry in the records of rights, 26 may institute a suit against any person denying or interested to deny his title to such right for declaration of his right under Chapter-vi of the Specific Relief Act.
Further it also states that the entry in the record of rights shall be amended in accordance with any such declaration. Therefore, ultimately it is finding of the Civil Court which governs the field and which has to be given effect to by the authorities and make entries accordingly. It is not too late in the day to take judicial notice of proceedings being initiated under the provisions of Act where either a civil proceeding is already pending or where a serious dispute of title is involved. Having regard to the fact that the authorities constituted under the aforesaid statute would not venture to go into such serious questions nor can decide thereupon, yet the parties are taking recourse to such proceedings. Ultimately after exhausting the remedies under the Act, the parties are approaching Civil Court whereby there is any amount of duplication in the entire process apart from the time consumed thereunder. In the circumstances, wherever there is serious dispute of title or claims of any rival title, it would not only be proper for the authorities to refrain from proceedings with the enquire as such under the provisions of the Act 27 but also pragmatic for the parties to approach the Civil Court for establishing their right, title and interest of whatsoever nature. Thought the proceedings now are at the threshold i.e., at the stage of issuance of a show cause notice, but one cannot loose sight of the fact that ultimately the authorities would have to fall back on the finding of the Civil Court. In the view of the same, the entire exercise by the authorities under the Act would be a mere farce and migatory".
In the view of the above facts the revision is not maintainable. Hence dismissed.
31. Coming to the Contempt Case, in the documents filed along with the Contempt Case, it is pertinent to note that Doc.No.527/2007 and Doc.No.1014/2007 were executed on 13.10.2007 i.e., subsequent to the passing of the status quo order dated 20.04.2005 by this Court in W.P.M.P.No.11096 of 2005 in W.P.No.8381 of 2005. Thereafter, Doc.No.698/2011 was executed on 22.01.2011, Doc.No.5107/2010 was executed on 21.06.2010 and Doc.No.851/2011 was executed on 27.01.2011 during the pendency of writ appeal and when status quo order dated 26.12.2008 in W.A.M.P.No.3490 of 2008 in W.A.No.1786 of 28 2008 was in force, which is a clear case of Contempt and deliberate and wilful violation of the orders of this Court.
32. With regard to the submission of respondent No.6 that he is not aware of the orders of this Court passed on 26.12.2008, the Registry has already marked and communicated the said order to respondent No.6 i.e., Mandal Revenue Officer and the submissions that he is not aware of the orders passed in W.A.M.P.No.3490 of 2008 dated 26.12.2008 is not sustainable. Even according to his own admission in the counter affidavit at paragraph No.6 that he has no knowledge of status quo order of this Court dated 26.12.2008, and as such he had issued pattadar passbooks and title deeds based on the report of Mandal Revenue Inspector incorporating successors. The submissions of respondent No.6 that he is not aware of the orders of this Court and that he has issued pattadar passbooks based on the report of Mandal Revenue Inspector incorporating successors without reference to the orders of this Court wherein a copy has already been marked to him by the Registry amounts to gross violation of the orders passed by this Court. Respondent No.6 ought 29 to have known the details of Court orders pending in their office at the time of filing the counter affidavit. Respondent No.6 could have verified the orders of this Court dated 26.12.2008, which he did not do so, which means that there is complete dereliction of duty and the same amounts to wilful disobedience of the orders of this Court.
33. It is pertinent to note that the writ petition was filed in the month of March, 2005 and the orders of status quo was passed on 20.04.2005, thereafter the respondents have filed W.V.M.P.No.2683 of 2006 to vacate the stay and learned Single Judge on 24.06.2008 thought it fit to hear the writ petition itself instead of passing an order in vacate stay application.
34. In Delhi Development Authority v. Skipper Construction Co.(p) Ltd., 2 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows in paragraphs 17 to 21:
"17. The principle that a contemnor ought not to be permitted to enjoy and/or keep the fruits of his contempt is well-settled. In Mohd.Idris v. R.J. Babuji [1985 (1) S.C.R.598], 2 (1996) 4 SCC 622 30 this Court held clearly that undergoing the punishment for contempt does not mean that the Court is not entitled to give appropriate directions for remedying and rectifying the things done in violation of its Orders. The petitioners therein had given an undertaking to the Bombay High Court. They acted in breach of it. A learned Single Judge held them guilty of contempt and imposed a sentence of one month's imprisonment. In addition thereto, the learned Single Judge made appropriate directions to remedy the breach of undertaking.
It was contended before this Court that the learned Judge was not justified in giving the aforesaid directions to in addition to punishing the petitioners for contempt of court. The argument was rejected holding that "the Single Judge was quite right in giving appropriate directions to close the breach [of undertaking]".
18. The above principle has been applied even in the case of violation of orders of injunction issued by Civil Courts. In Clarke v. Chadburn [1985 (1) All.E.R. 211], Sir Robert Megarry V-C observed:
"I need not cite authority for the proposition that it is of high importance that orders of the court should be obeyed. Willful disobedience to an order of the 31 court is punishable as a contempt of court, and I feel no doubt that such disobedience may properly be described as being illegal. If by such disobedience the persons enjoined claim that they have validly effected some charge in the rights and liabilities of others, I cannot see why it should be said that although they are liable to penalties for contempt of court for doing what they did, nevertheless those acts were validly done. Of course, if an act is done, it is not undone merely by pointing out that it was done in breach in law. If a meeting is held in breach of an injunction, it cannot be said that the meeting has not been held. But the legal consequences of what has been done in breach of the law may plainly be very much affected by the illegality. It seems to me on principle that those who defy a prohibition ought not to be able to claim that the fruits of their defiance are good, and not tainted by the illegality that produced them."
19. To the same effect are the decisions of the Madras and Calcutta High Courts in Century Flour Mills Limited v. S. Suppiah & Ors.
[A.I.R.1975 Madras 270] and Sujit Pal v. Prabir 32 Kumar Sun [A.I.R.1986 Calcutta 220]. In Century Flour Mill Limited, it was held by a Full Bench of the Madras High Court that where an act is done in violation of an order of stay or injunction, it is the duty of the Court, as a policy, to set the wrong right and not allow the perpetuation of the wrong-doing. The inherent power of the Court, it was held, is not only available in such a case, but it is bound to be exercise it to undo the wrong in the interest of justice. That was a case where a meeting was held contrary to an order of injunction. The Court refused to recognize that the holding of the meeting is a legal one. It put back the parties in the same position as they stood immediately prior to the service of the interim order.
20. In Suraj Pal, a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court has taken the same view. There, the defendant forcibly dispossessed the plaintiff in violation of the order of injunction and took possession of the property. The Court directed the restoration of possession to the plaintiff with the aid of police. The Court observed that no technicality can prevent the Court from doing justice in exercise of its inherent powers. It held that the object of Rule 2- A of Order 39 will be fulfilled only where such mandatory direction is given for restoration of 33 possession to the aggrieved party. This was necessary, it observed, to prevent the abuse of process of law.
21. There is no doubt that this salutary rule has to be applied and given effect to by this Court, if necessary, by over-ruling any procedural or other- technical objections. Article 129 is a constitutional power and when exercised in tandem with Article 142, all such objections should give away. The Court must ensure full justice between the parties before it.
35. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and carefully perused the material available on record.
36. On the narration of facts in the orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer and Joint Collector, this Court is of the opinion that learned Single Judge was correct in holding that if the petitioners are seriously disputing the validity of sale deeds, it is not possible for the respondents to give any finding thereon and that the only remedy available to the petitioners is to file a suit for declaration of their title.
34
37. In view of the same, we are not inclined to differ with the findings of the learned Single Judge and as such warrants no interference. In the result, the writ appeal W.A.No.1786 of 2008 fails and is accordingly dismissed.
38. This Court is of the firm view that respondent Nos.1 to 6 in C.C.No.1577 of 2014 have not explained any compelling circumstances or the reasons for not implementing the status quo orders dated 20.04.2005 and 26.12.2008. In view of the same, it is beyond doubt that respondent Nos.2 to 6 have deliberately and intentionally disobeyed the status quo orders dated 20.04.2005 and 26.12.2008 passed by this Court and in that view, this Court has no other option but to resort to contempt action. Accordingly, Contempt Case in C.C.No.1577 of 2014 is allowed and respondent Nos.2 to 6 (as respondent No.1 is no more) are sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of four (04) weeks, and shall also pay fine of Rs.2,000/- each within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
35
39. The above order of punishment shall be suspended for a period of sixty (60) days to prefer an appeal. In case no appeal is preferred or no stay is granted by the Appellate Court in the appeal, if any preferred, respondent Nos.2 to 6/Contemnors shall surrender before Registrar (Judicial), High Court for the State of Telangana to undergo sentence.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
______________________________________ ALOK ARADHE, CJ ______________________________________ N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR, J 05.01.2024 Note: L.R. copy to be marked.
B/o mrm