S Aleem Basha vs B Sivananda
2022 Latest Caselaw 919 AP

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI



HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE
                                        &

         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY


                     CONTEMPT APPEAL No.14 of 2021
                              (Through physical mode)

S. Aleem Basha,
The Chief Executive Officer,
A.P. State Waqf Board, 4th Floor,
Imdadghar, Kaleswara Rao Market,
Vijayawada, Krishna District.
                                                        .. Appellant
       Versus

B. Sivananda,
S/o. Tippaiah, Aged about 59 years,
R/o. D.No.119, Molagavalli Village,
Aluru Mandal, Kurnool District.
                                                        .. Respondent

Counsel for the appellant : Mr. Syed Khader Masthan, for Mr. Ponnavolu Sudhakara Reddy Counsel for the respondent : Mr. Subba Rao Korrapati, for Mr. M. Delhi Babu

ORAL JUDGMENT

Dt: 21.02.2022

(per Prashant Kumar Mishra, CJ)

This appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971,

has been preferred against the order dated 08.11.2021 passed by the

learned single Judge in Contempt Case No.1229 of 2020, whereby the said

contempt case filed by the respondent herein was allowed, holding the

appellant/contemnor guilty of contempt of court for wilful disobedience to

the order dated 31.12.2019 in W.P.No.21114 of 2019 and sentencing him to

undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two weeks and to pay a fine of

Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three days.

HCJ & MSM, J

2. By the order dated 31.12.2019 in W.P.No.21114 of 2019, the writ

Court has directed the Chief Executive Officer of the A.P. State Wakf Board

(fourth respondent in the writ petition) to make necessary correction with

regard to Survey No.662 to an extent of Ac. 18.79 cents situated at

Molagavalli Village, Alur Mandal, Kurnool District, as mentioned in the

prohibited list, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a

copy of the order.

3. In the order under appeal, the learned single Judge has observed that

the aforesaid order was communicated to the contemnor on 30.01.2020 and

in terms of the time stipulation in the order, it has to be implemented by

28.02.2020, but the contemnor has not taken any steps for its

implementation within the time stipulated. It was further observed by the

learned single Judge that though on 06.03.2020, a letter was addressed by

the contemnor to the Commissioner & Inspector General, Registration &

Stamps, Government of Andhra Pradesh, to include the land in Sy.No.622 to

an extent of Ac. 37.94 cents, which was notified as wakf property, in the

prohibited list, there was no mention about deletion of Sy.No.662 and, thus,

the order was not implemented in true spirit. It was further observed that

only after filing of the contempt case, the contemnor has again addressed

letter dated 15.11.2020 to the Registration & Stamps Department to include

the land in Sy.No.622 to an extent of Ac. 37.94 cents instead of Sy.No.662 in

the prohibited list. Thus, the learned single Judge held that the contemnor

has wilfully disobeyed the order passed by this Court and was, therefore,

guilty of contempt of court and, accordingly, imposed the punishment as

stated above.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record.

HCJ & MSM, J

5. No doubt, in the earlier letter dated 06.03.2020, there was no

mention to delete Sy.No.662 from the prohibited list and it only speaks about

inclusion of the land in Sy.No.622. However, in the annexure attached to the

said letter, the details of the property were furnished and a perusal of the

same reveals that except the survey number of the land, all other details,

such as extent of the land and entry number in the gazette notification,

mentioned therein are tallying with the corresponding details mentioned as

against Sy.No.662 in the prohibited list communicated to the Registration &

Stamps Department vide letter dated 16.11.2016 (available at page Nos.106

& 107 of the appeal papers). From this, it can be understood that inclusion

of Sy.No.622 in the place of Sy.No.662 was intended but it was not properly

communicated by the contemnor in the letter dated 06.03.2020. In any

event, subsequently, vide letter dated 15.11.2020, the contemnor has issued

clarification and required the Commissioner & Inspector General,

Registration and Stamps Department, to include the land in Sy.No.622

instead of Sy.No.662, which would mean that Sy.No.662 has to be deleted.

Thus, though there was delay in implementing the order of the Court, as it

appears to be not wilful and deliberate, we are of the considered opinion

that there was no wilful disobedience on the part of the contemnor and,

therefore, he cannot be held guilty of contempt of court.

6. For the discussion above, the order under appeal is set aside and the

contempt appeal is, accordingly, allowed. The fine amount of Rs.1,000/- paid

by the appellant/contemnor pursuant to the order under appeal shall be

refunded to him. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed. No costs.

PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CJ M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J

IBL