Telangana High Court
Sri Madhurakavi Laxmana Swamy vs Sri Navin Mittal, Ias on 22 November, 2024
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
CONTEMPT CASE No.1393 of 2024
ORDER:
This Contempt Case is filed invoking the provisions under Section 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act to punish the respondents for wilful and deliberate disobedience of the order passed by this Court in I.A.No.2 of 2019 in W.P.No.23176 of 2017, dated 05.02.2024.
2. Heard Sri BHR Choudary, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignment) appearing for the respondents.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that respondent No.4 has passed the resumption order vide proceedings No.B/454/2022, dated 19.08.2024, exercising the powers conferred under the provisions of Telangana Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (herein after called as "Act" for brevity). Respondent No.4 himself in the said order stated that the records pertaining to the subject property are not available. In the absence of records, respondent No.4 ought 2 JSR,J C.C.No.1393 of 2024 not to have passed the said order. He further contended that respondent No.4 passed the above said order only to defeat the rights of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the Village Revenue Officer has tampered with the record and entered the name of his mother in the records. However, the name of the petitioner was recorded in sethwar. In such circumstances, respondent No.4 is liable for punishment.
4. In support of his contention, learned counsel has relied upon the judgments of the High Court for the State of Telangana in Mudusu Ramesh and others v. Smt. Shanta Kumari, IAS and others 1 and High Court of Andhra Pradesh in ITC Limited, Visakhapatnam v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others 2
5. Per contra, learned Government Pleader submits that pursuant to the orders of this Court dated 05.02.2024, respondent No.4 issued notice and only after considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, respondent No.4 passed the resumption order on 19.08.2024, by giving 1 2024 (5) ALT 20 (S.B.) 2 2024 (2) ALD 246 (AP) 3 JSR,J C.C.No.1393 of 2024 valid reasons. He further submits that in view of the compliance of the order passed by this Court, respondents are not liable for punishment under the provisions of the Act.
6. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it is evident that this Court disposed of the review petition filed vide I.A.No.2 of 2019 in W.P.No.23176 of 2017, granting liberty to respondent No.4 herein to initiate proceedings afresh by duly following the provisions of the Act and Rules made thereunder, if so he advised, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, and respondent No.1, who is petitioner in the present case is permitted to submit his explanation to the said notice, by raising all the grounds which are available in law, and on receipt of such explanation, respondent No.4 is directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after giving opportunity to the respective properties 4 JSR,J C.C.No.1393 of 2024 including personal hearing within a period of eight (8) weeks from thereafter.
7. The record discloses that pursuant to the above said order, respondent No.4 has issued Form-I notice under Rule 3 of the Telangana Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Rules, 2007 (herein after called as "Rules" for brevity), on 25.07.2024, directing the petitioner to submit explanation. Pursuant to the same, petitioner has submitted explanation. Thereafter, respondent No.4 passed the resumption order 19.08.2024. In the said order, respondent No.4 only stated that the record pertaining to issuance of passbook to one Smt.T.Athulayamma is not available. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the absence of records pertaining to the subject property, respondent No.4 is not entitled to pass the resumption order is not tenable under law. However, the issue with regard to whether respondent No.4 is having records in respect of the subject property or not, cannot be adjudicated in the contempt proceedings. This Court while disposing of I.A.No.2 of 2019 in W.P.No.23176 5 JSR,J C.C.No.1393 of 2024 of 2017 on 05.02.2024, only directed respondent No.4 to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after following the procedure prescribed under the provisions of the Act and Rules made thereunder.
8. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in ITC Limited, Visakhapatnam's case (2 supra), the High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that not affording opportunity to the petitioner therein and not giving reasons in the impugned order is gross violation of principles of natural justice. The above said principle is not applicable to the case on hand on the ground that the petitioner has not disputed that respondent No.4 has given opportunity to the petitioner before passing the resumption order. Similarly, the principle laid down in Mudusu Ramesh's case (1 supra) is also not applicable to the present facts of the case, on the ground that in the said case, the matter pertains to regularisation of the services of the employee.
9. In view of the resumption order dated 19.08.2024 passed by respondent No.4, exercising powers conferred 6 JSR,J C.C.No.1393 of 2024 under the provisions of the Act, this Court is of the considered view that no further adjudication is required in the Contempt Case.
10. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed. However, petitioner is granted liberty to avail the remedies as available under law, including questioning the resumption order dated 19.08.2024 passed by respondent No.4, by raising all the grounds which are available under law. No costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________________ JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO 22-11-2024 vsl