The High Court of Andhra Pradesh in a contempt case held the respondent guilty and stated that the right to property though not a fundamental right, however, it is a constitutional right under Article 300A of the Constitution of India and neither in the counter affidavit nor in the additional counter affidavit, the respondent issued an apology and the respondent is thus guilty of contumacious conduct of flouting the order of this court.
Brief Facts:
The current contempt case is filed under Section 10 to Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to punish the respondents for their willful and deliberate disobedience of the order of the court.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondents visited the shops of the petitioner and made markings without issuing any notice and informed that the shops would be demolished for road widening. It was contended that despite the court’s order to follow the procedure, the respondent high-handedly demolished the shops without following the due process of law and no notice was served to the petitioner by the respondents before demolishing the structure.
Contentions of the Respondent:
It was contended on behalf of the respondent that the petitioner does not have any legal right over 120 square yards of the site where the shops were demolished and as per the revenue records, it is the government’s land and the mother of the petitioner encroached upon the land and constructed the structures. Further, even the encroachers who constructed structures illegally and mutated their names are assessed for tax but mere assessment of tax does not amount to acceptance of the rights of parties over the property. A written notice was served on all the encroachers as per the law but the petitioner here refused to receive the notice and therefore, the same was affixed on the disputed property in the presence of witnesses. Thus, the respondent followed the due process of law and thereafter demolished the shops
Observations of the Court:
The court observed that it was neither pleaded orally nor brought to the notice of the court about the issuance of the notice as contended by the counsel for the respondent. If really notices were issued under the law, as pleaded by in the counter affidavit, the learned counsel would have brought the same to the notice of the court. In contrast to this, the counsel for the 2nd respondent submitted that the corporation will follow the procedure. Thus, based on the pleading and material available on record, the court observed that the notice said to have been issued, which were filed along with the counter affidavit and additional counter affidavit were only an after-thought and to avoid the contempt proceedings.
The court further stated that punishing a person for contempt of court is indeed a drastic step and normally such action should not be taken but at the same time, however, it is not only the power but the duty of the court to uphold and maintain the dignity of courts and majesty of law which may call for such extreme steps and it is for proper administration of justice and to ensure due compliance with the orders passed by a court, the court should require taking strict view under the Act and it should not hesitate in exercising the mighty weapon of contempt.
The court stated that the present case was a case of demolition wherein it has been found that the respondent acted willfully and deliberately and the respondent has not taken steps to compensate the petitioner. It was further stated that the right to property though not a fundamental right, however, it is a constitutional right under Article 300A of the Constitution of India and neither in the counter affidavit nor in the additional counter affidavit, the respondent issued an apology and the respondent is thus guilty of contumacious conduct of flouting the order of this court and the conduct of the officer in bringing down the majesty of the law and further creates doubts in society about the efficacy of the order of Constitutional Court.
The decision of the Court:
The court disposed of the contempt case and sentenced the respondent to simple imprisonment of one month in addition to a fine of Rs. 2000.
Case Title: P. Padmavathi Bai vs. C. Hari Kiran and anr.
Coram: Hon’ble Sri Justice Subba Reddy Satti
Case No.: Contempt Case No. 1007 of 2020
Advocate for the Applicant: Sri Jada Sravan Kumar
Advocate for the Respondent: Sri Kasa Jagan Mohan Reddy and Sri V.S.K Rama Rao
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
