Pllem Laxmi Vara Prasad vs K Madavo Latha
2022 Latest Caselaw 1787 AP

     THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

                CONTEMPT CASE No.875 of 2019

ORDER:-

     The present Contempt Case is filed, under Sections

10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, for deliberate and

willful violation of the order dated 26.10.2018, passed in

W.P.No.946 of 2017, wherein this Court allowed the Writ

Petition and set aside the findings given by the Joint

Collector wherein the order passed in Execution Petition in

O.S.No.272 of 2000 was declared as bad in law.


2.   It is to be noted here that the petitioner herein claims to

be an absolute owner, possessor and enjoyer of the land

admeasuring Ac.1.90 cents in Sy.Nos.49/1B and 81/2

situated   at    Pothepalli   Village,    Machilipatnam   Mandal,

Krishna District, having obtained a regular Sale Deed,

through a decree in O.S.No.272 of 2000, which was filed for

Specific Performance of Agreement of Sale, against one

Vemula Satyavathi, who obtained her title through a

registered Gift Deed dated 26.02.1985, executed by her

husband Vemula Satyavathi.               Though, the husband of

Vemula Satyavathi obtained land on payment by way of

instalments, respondent no.4 issued Form-II notice under

Rule-3 of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Land (Prohibition of

Transfer) Rules, 2007 on the ground that the transfer of land

CPK, J C.C.No.875 of 2019

was in contravention of the Provisions of the enactment.

After considering the explanation submitted, an order came

to be passed on 22.07.2015 holding that the sale is in

contravention of enactment. Aggrieved by the said order, the

Petitioner preferred an appeal before the respondent no.3

therein, which was dismissed on 01.02.2016. The Revision

filed by the petitioner was also dismissed, against which, a

Writ Petition was filed.

3. After considering the material on record and the orders

passed by the Civil Court and other documents, a learned

Single Judge held as under:-

"12. In the instant case, the assignment was by way of consideration, which is evident from the judgment of the civil Court. Apart from that, the plea taken by the revenue authorities in this writ petition is that the petitioner has suppressed the fact of assignment also appears to be incorrect for the reason that in O.S.No.203 of 1991, the vendor of the petitioner, specifically pleaded and referred to the assignment made in favour of her husband and in the said suit, the Government of Andhra Pradesh was a party. Therefore, they cannot now say that the petitioner has suppressed the fact of assignment before the civil Court. The suit filed by V. Satyavathi was decreed earlier in point of time and the same was confirmed in the appeal. That being the position, it cannot be said that the petitioner has suppressed the fact of assignment in subsequent suit, since the findings in O.S.No.203 of 1991 have become final by then. Having regard to the above, the question of non-disclosure of the said fact in O.S.No.272 of 2000 would not arise. In view of the findings of the civil Court, the findings of the authorities appear to be prima facie incorrect. Hence, the findings given by the Joint Collector that the order in

CPK, J C.C.No.875 of 2019

execution petition in O.S.No.272 of 2000 as null and void cannot be accepted.

13. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs."

4. Challenging the same, W.A.No.454 of 2019 came to be

filed by the State. In I.A.No.02 of 2019, a Division Bench of

this Court passed the following order:-

"After considering the rival submissions of both the parties, we deem it appropriate to direct all actions in respect of the suit land shall abide by the result of the appeal.

With the above direction, the I.A. is allowed."

5. The present Contempt Case came to be filed, before

passing of the order by the Division Bench, mainly on the

ground that the alleged contemnors herein have not

implemented the orders passed in W.P.No.946 of 2017,

meaning thereby that the name of the Petitioner was not

mutated in the revenue records, apart from issuing title

deeds and Pattadar Pass Book in respect of the said property.

6. A counter came to be filed on 17.12.2019 by the

Tahsildar, Machilipatnam, disputing the averments made in

the affidavit filed, in support of the Contempt Case.

According to him, he assumed charge as Tahsildar on

13.02.2019 and thereafter during General Elections, he was

appointed as Assistant Returning Officer, Machilipatnam

Assembly Constituency. According to him, he has verified all

CPK, J C.C.No.875 of 2019

the previous records for taking appropriate steps, to protect

the land which was classified as vacant lands in revenue

records. It was further stated that he has addressed a letter

to District Collector, Krishna, seeking necessary instructions

for implementation of the order. According to him, the

District Collector is said to have advised him to prefer Writ

Appeal.

7. The counter also discloses that earlier Writ Petition

No.2280 of 1999 was filed by one Vemula Satyavathi, for

deletion of the land from the list of assigned lands which was

rejected on 09.07.2003. The counter filed also shows that

pending W.P.No.2280 of 1999, a suit for Specific Performance

of Agreement of Sale, dated 12.10.1995, was filed seeking a

direction to the defendants to execute a Registered Sale Deed

in respect of property in the said suit. The said suit was

decreed with costs directing the defendants to execute a Sale

Deed in favour of plaintiff within a period of two months.

One Pallem Lakshmi Vara Prasad filed E.P.No.21 of 2008

without disclosing the order passed in W.P.No.2280 of 2019,

before the Tahsildar, Machilipatnam claiming an extent of

Ac.1.90 cents in R.S.No.49-1B, 81-2 in Pothepalli Village of

Machilipatnam. It is said that the request made by Pallem

Lakshmi Vara Prasad, for mutation of his name in Revenue

records and for issuance of Pattadar Pass Book, was rejected

with an endorsement that the land referred to above is an

CPK, J C.C.No.875 of 2019

assigned land. The record also refers to filing of O.S.No.203

of 1991 wherein the land was assigned for consideration and

the consideration in D-Form Patta was paid by the plaintiff's

husband, and as such, the assignment cannot be cancelled

by the Government. The order passed in O.S.No.203 of 1991

was challenged by the Government in A.S.No.101 of 1994,

but the same was dismissed. Various other issues came to

be raised in the counter filed, which are as under:-

"11. It is submitted that the Hon‟ble appellate court up held the order of the trial court but observed that the sum paid by the assignee as market value of the land and the government cannot resume the land. The Hon‟ble Court has not been apprised of the difference between the „sum‟ collected on allotment of ceiling surplus land and Market value collected for allotting Government lands to corporations, companies societies and individuals.

Though the suit was decreed against the Government, the land vests with the legal heirs of the assignee, as the case was disposed on the question fact whether the land was brought under cultivation or not. Therefore, it will not have impact on other cases. Incorporation of the name of the deceased‟s (assignees) wife i.e., Smt. Vemula Satyavathi itself has no impact. The A.S.No.101/94 was not challenged and it has become final.

12. It is submitted that Sri Pallem Lakshmi Vara Prasad filed a suit against Smt. Vemula Satyavathi in O.S.No.272/2000 before Principal Senior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam. The Government was not a party in the suit. Sri Pallem Lakshmi Varaprasad got favourable orders in O.S.No.272/2000 and E.P.No.21/2008 and got registered vide sale deed document No.3285/2009. In the circumstances, it is submitted that the Government (Revenue) is not a party to the suit in O.S.No.272/2000 it is not binding on the Government.

14. It is submitted that the petitioner and the legal heir of the assignee Smt. Vemula Satyavathi played fraud on the Revenue Authorities hiding the orders of the Hon‟ble High Court orders issued in

CPK, J C.C.No.875 of 2019

W.P.No.2280/1999, dated 09.01.2003 in various lower courts and obtained favour orders in favourable of her and basing on the lower court orders, the petitioner succeeded to get favourable orders in W.P.No.946/2017, dated 26.10.2018.

I hereby submit that I have got highest regard for the orders of the Hon‟ble Court and I have not intentionally violated the orders of the Hon‟ble High Court in W.P.No.946/2017, dated 26.10.2018 except for the reasons explained above and to take appropriate steps to protect the land which was classified as assigned land."

8. However, the learned Government Pleader placed on

record material to show that the orders of this Court has

been complied with by incorporating the name of the

Petitioner in the revenue records and also issuing the

Pattadar Pass Book in favour of the petitioner. But, the

grievance of the petitioner is that the land is still shown as

Government Land and it is not deleted from the Prohibitory

List.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that

since the land is still shown as Government Land, the

petitioner will not be in a position to enjoy the same as he

cannot obtain any loans for development of the said land. He

further submits that implementation of the order of the

learned Single Judge in W.P.No.946 of 2017 would be

completed only when the land is deleted from the Prohibitory

List.

CPK, J C.C.No.875 of 2019

10. To this, learned Government Pleader would submit that

there is no bar for obtaining any loans from the bank since

nothing prevents the bank from advancing loans. According

to him, without making any effort, the petitioner is making a

bald statement about non-granting of loans by the Banks.

11. Be that as it may, learned Government Pleader would

contend that even accepting the argument of learned counsel

for the petitioner to be true, it would only amount to a fresh

cause of action, for which, he may have to file a fresh Writ

Petition. Even otherwise, learned Government Pleader

contends that it may not be proper to delete the same from

the Prohibitory List at this stage, having regard to the order

passed in Writ Appeal.

12. At this stage, a suggestion fell from the Government

Pleader that necessary directions as sought for by the

petitioner may be given, if the petitioner gives an undertaking

that he will not alienate the land. Learned counsel for the

petitioner, on instructions states that his client is not willing

to give any undertaking.

13. It is no doubt true that the land is still shown in

Prohibitory List, but as the name of the petitioner is mutated

in the revenue records, Pattadar Pass Book and title deeds

are also issued to the petitioner and in view of the order in

I.A.No.02 of 2019 in W.A.No.454 of 2019, it cannot be said

CPK, J C.C.No.875 of 2019

that there was any deliberate and willful violation of the order

passed by this Court.

14. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is dismissed.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand

closed.

_______________________________ JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

Date:13.04.2022

MS

CPK, J C.C.No.875 of 2019

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

CONTEMPT CASE No.875 of 2019

Date:13.04.2022

MS