Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

P.Chandra Sekhar Reddy vs Sri Sreenivasulu Ganjarapalli, on 30 December, 2021

Bench: C.Praveen Kumar

     THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

              CONTEMPT CASE No.3424 of 2018

ORDER:-

      Alleging willful and deliberate violation of the Order,

dated 12.09.2018, passed in W.P.No.32703 of 2018, by the

respondent, the present Contempt Case is filed under

Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

2. The above mentioned Writ Petition came to be filed,

seeking issuance of Writ of Mandamus to declare the inaction

on the part of the respondent No.3 in considering the

petitioner's application, dated 15.05.2018 and 18.06.2018 in

accordance with the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass

Books Act, 1971 and the Rules made therein as illegal and

arbitrary.

3. Vide order, dated 12.09.2018 in W.P.No.32703 of 2018,

the Court passed an order, the operative portion of which is

as under:

".....directing the petitioner to submit a fresh application through online enclosing all the relevant documents in respect of the subject land, in which event, the 3rd respondent/Tahsildar shall deal with same and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, as early as possible, preferably within a period of three to four months from the date of submission of fresh application after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and all concerned".

CPK, J C.C.No.3424 of 2018

4. Subsequent to the order passed by this Court, the

petitioner is said to have made an application on

26.09.2018, which was rejected on 12.10.2018 though the

date of hearing was fixed on 20.10.2018 in the notice dated

12.10.2018. Hence, it is pleaded that the Tahsildar has

committed Contempt of the Court for not passing the order

in terms of the Order, dated 12.09.2018.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly submits that

no opportunity was given to the petitioner to present the

case and an order, if any came to be passed without giving

any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is further

stated that the notice, dated 12.10.2018, was received on

12.10.2018 itself and an order came to be passed on the very

same day rejecting the request. Hence, the direction of this

Court, directing the authorities to give an opportunity of

hearing has not been complied with, leave alone passing of

the order.

6. A counter came to be filed by the Tahsildar/respondent

No.3 disputing the averments made in the affidavit filed in

support of the writ petition. It is stated that an online

application was made on 26.09.2018 through Mee Seva and

also a manual representation to the Tahsildar with a request

to mutate his name in revenue records, in respect of the land

admeasuring Ac.0.20 cents situated at Sy.No.77/1 and

CPK, J C.C.No.3424 of 2018

Ac.0.22 cents situated at Sy.No.76/1 of Ramrajupalli Village

of Kadapa Mandal. As per the counter, notices were issued

to (1) Smt. N.H. Pyarijaan, (2) Smt. Palagiri Lalithamma, (3)

Sri Ponnolu Chandrasekhar Reddy to attend before the

Tahsildar, Kadapa on 20.10.2018 along with the documents.

It is said that Palagiri Lalithamma and Ponnolu Chandra

Sekhar Reddy appeared and submitted documents in

support of their plea. The material filed by both of them was

verified. It is stated in the counter that the petitioner herein

did not submit any substantial evidence showing his

statutory right over the land, namely as to how the subject

land was acquired by him.

(a) It is further stated that the subject land shown as

patta land in the revenue records is in the names of

Rahambi and Palagiri Subbaiah and the same was also

recorded in the names of their successors. Pattadar

Passbooks/Title Deeds were also issued in their favour, as

such the remedy for the petitioner lies elsewhere. It is stated

that the online application of the petitioner, dated

26.09.2018, was disposed of vide proceedings dated

26.12.2018 and the same was communicated to him on

27.12.2018 by registered post acknowledgment due.

7. The grounds raised in the counter affidavit are

re-agitated before this Court by the learned Government

Pleader for Revenue.

CPK, J C.C.No.3424 of 2018

8. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner would

contend that the notice and the order came to be passed on

the very same day which is evident from the Mee Seva

Integrated Service Delivery Gateway receipt.

9. There is no dispute that the document referred to by

the learned counsel for the petitioner relate to Mee Seva

which shows that under the column 'status' it is mentioned

as 'rejected' and under the column approved/rejected, the

date it is shown as '12.10.2018'. In the remarks column, it

is stated that as notice served on both the parties and the

issue is pending in Tahsildar Court. Having regard to the

usage of the word 'rejection' in status column and the date of

the said rejection as 12.10.2018, learned counsel for the

petitioner mainly submitted that the notice as well as the

order came to be passed on the very same day. It is not in

dispute that the notice was issued on 12.10.2018, but the

rejection was not in respect of the said application which

was made on 26.09.2018. What it means is that as the

matter is pending before the Tahsildar, the online

application is rejected. This endorsement came to be made

for the reason that Mee Seva application, which is an

electronic form, will be accepted by the software

automatically after the expiry of 30 days duly mutating the

name in favour of the petitioner in revenue records though it

is pending before the Tahsildar. Hence, to avoid deemed

CPK, J C.C.No.3424 of 2018

mutation automatically, the application was rejected on

12.10.2018 which is the date of service of the notice to the

petitioner as stated by the petitioner in the writ petition.

Therefore, the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner

that no notice was issued and that the order came to be

passed behind the back of the petitioner cannot be accepted.

10. The record shows that pursuant to the order passed in

W.P.No.32703 of 2018, a representation was made where

notices were issued directing the parties to appear before the

Tahsildar at the office of the Tahsildar. All the parties to

whom the notices have been issued did appear and filed the

documents available, but the petitioner herein has not

produced any documents of the subject land except the

judgment of the Civil Court in O.S.No.86 of 1997. After

verifying the material placed and the orders passed, it was

found that the petitioner failed to establishing his title over

the subject land and accordingly the application of the

petitioner was rejected on 26.12.2018. A copy of the said

order was received on 27.12.2018. Apart from that, the

same was also sent by way of Registered Post

Acknowledgment Due.

11. It would be appropriate to extract the relevant portion

in the counter filed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, which

is as under:

CPK, J C.C.No.3424 of 2018

"(iv) Accordingly, the application of the petitioner Sri Ponnolu Chandra Sekhar Reddy, S/o. Narasimha Reddy dated 26.09.2018 is disposed off and the orders of the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad in W.P.No.32703/2018 dated 12.09.2018 are complied with and to that effect a speaking order was issued vide this office Ref.No.TAHKDP-TLOROR (AD)/7/2018-SA-TAH(KDP)-

KDPDVSN, Dt:26.12.2018 to the applicant by way of registered post bearing No.RN60098984/IN, dt:27.12.2018 as it was rejected by him to take it from the Village Revenue Officer, Ramarajupalli Village of Kadapa Mandal.

(v) Further, it was also informed to the petitioner in the aforesaid speaking order, that an appeal against the aforesaid speaking orders lies with the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadapa within a period of 60 (sixty) days from the date of communication of the said order U/S.5(5) AP Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971.

(vi) It is submitted that, it is to point out that the petitioner in the present contempt case stated that he has made an application through meeseva bearing application No.RMU011801393730, dt:26.09.2018 was rejected on 12.10.2018. The said application was rejected duly stating that "notices served to both parties and issue pending in Tahsildar court" after a period of 16 days which was not stated and concealed by the petitioner in the present contempt case before the Hon'ble High Court. It is rejected, because, the Meeseva application which is in electronic form will be accepted by the software automatically after expiry of 30 days duly mutating in favour of petitioner's name in revenue records for the subject land even though it was pending in Tahsildar Court. Hence, to avoid deemed mutation automatically, the application made by the petitioner was rejected on 12.10.2018 which is the date of service of notice to the petitioner as stated by the petitioner in the present writ petition.

(vii) It is also submitted that, the petitioner in the present contempt case while filing the present contempt case

CPK, J C.C.No.3424 of 2018

has also filed writ petition bearing No. 47079 of 2018 on 24.12.2018 before the Hon'ble High Court of A.P., simultaneously and the Hon'ble High Court of A.P., disposed the said writ petition on 28.12.2018 with the disposal Type as "Disposed of No costs" and the orders are yet to be received from the Hon'ble High Court of A.P."

12. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner would

contend that the petitioner did not receive the copy of the

order as it was intentionally not sent to the correct address.

In other words, learned counsel for the petitioner pleads that

the order is invented for the purpose of this case and if really

there was an order, nothing prevented them to send it to the

correct address, but instead it was sent to Shankarapuram

(Cuddapah) which is no way connected with the address of

the petitioner.

13. In order to test the same, I have perused the cover

which show that it returned on the ground that the door was

locked for seven days (with the postal receipt). The said