Somisetty Harigopal vs Sri B.Maheswara Reddy
2022 Latest Caselaw 1479 AP

  THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

                    CONTEMPT CASE NO.1606 OF 2021

ORDER:

This contempt case is filed under Sections 10 to 12 of the

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, against the respondent/contemnor

to punish him for intentionally and deliberately disobeying the

interim order passed by this Court in W.P.No.15697 of 2021 dated

04.08.2021.

Brief facts germane to filing of this contempt case are that,

the petitioner is the absolute owner of the land of an extent of

Ac.3-80 cents in Sy.No.135/1A, Ac.0-20 cents in Sy.No.135/2,

Ac.0-55 cents in Sy.No.135/3, Ac.1-10 cents in Sy.No.135/3,

Ac.0-50 cents in Sy.No.135/2 and Ac.0-40 cents in Sy.No.135/6 of

Cherlopalli Village, C.K. Dinne Mandal of Kadapa District, having

purchased under Registered Sale Deed vide Document No.3721 of

2012 dated 11.06.2013. Since the above land is classified as

„Dotted Land‟ in the R.S.R on 09.10.2019, the petitioner made an

application to update his name in relevant record/records as per

Section 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Dotted Lands (Updation and Re-

settlement Register) Act, 2017.

On 10.02.2020, the District Level Committee considered the

case and allowed the claim. Accordingly, on 08.04.2020, the

District Collector through proceedings in R.Dis.No.REV-

SWLA0DT/44/2020 dated 08.04.2020 declared that the above

land is private patta land and directed the respondent/contemnor

to update the name of this petitioner in revenue records and also

directed the respondent/contemnor to delete the subject property

from the list of prohibited properties under Section 22-A of the

Registration Act.

MSM,J CC No.1606 of 2021

As the respondent/contemnor did not implement the order of

the District Level Committee date 18.04.2020, the petitioner filed

W.P.No.10367 of 2021, wherein, this Court disposed of the writ

petition on 15.06.2021 with the following direction:

"In the result, this writ petition is allowed directing the respondents 3 to 5 to implement the orders of the Chairman, District Level Committee, the 2nd respondent herein vide Proceedings R.Dis.No.REV-SWLA0DT/44/2020 dated 08.04.2020, within one month from today and failure to implement the said order may lead to serious consequences."

The order of this Court is clear and there is no ambiguity.

Further, the Act does not provide any enquiry after an order is

passed under Section 7, except to implement the order under

Sections 9 and 10. Further, this Court also directed the

respondent/contemnor to implement the orders of the District

Collector within one month from 16.06.2021 with a rider that

"failure to implement the said order may lead to serious

consequences". The respondent/contemnor received the copy of

order in W.P.No.10367 of 2021 and instead of implementing the

order of this Court, initiated enquiry under Section 5(3) of the

Andhra Pradesh Records of Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks

Act, 1971 and accordingly, issued notice on 16.07.2021 for

conducting enquiry. Since initiation of enquiry itself is out and out

disobedience of the order, the petitioner filed W.P.No.15697 of

2021 and C.C.No.1289 of 2021. On 04.08.2021, this Court

suspended the Notice issued by the respondent/contemnor,

wherein, enquiry was proposed to be conducted. In C.C.No.1289 of

2021, this Court ordered notice to respondent/contemnor.

On 05.08.2021, the petitioner along with his Advocate

appeared before the respondent/contemnor and filed Memo along

with the downloaded copy of the court proceedings from the official

MSM,J CC No.1606 of 2021

website of this Court, informing about the order of interim

suspension passed by this Court. The respondent/contemnor also

acknowledged receipt of the Memo. Inspite of the interim

suspension granted by this Court, the respondent/contemnor

proceeded with the matter and passed final order pursuant to the

Notice of Enquiry vide Ref.No.PTR/1714/2021 dated 13.08.2021

which is willful disobedience of the order of this Court. The

respondent/contemnor being the Tahsildar is under legal

obligation to implement the order passed by this Court in its letter

and spirit, but the present action of the respondent/contemnor not

only amounts to willful disobedience of the order passed by this

Court, but also amounting to interfering with the administration of

justice. Therefore, the respondent/contemnor is liable for

punishment for willful and deliberate disobedience of the order

passed by this Court in W.P.No.15697 of 2021 dated 04.08.202

and requested to punish the respondent/contemnor.

The respondent/contemnor filed reply affidavit denying

material allegations, inter alia, contending that the District

Collector through proceedings in R.Dis.No.REV-SWLA0DT/

44/2020 dated 08.04.2020 declared the above land as Private

Patta Land and there is no direction to update the petitioner‟s

name in revenue records as it has been stated in District Level

Committee to take necessary action accordingly, and mutate in the

revenue records.

The respondent/contemnor denied non-compliance of the

order of the District Level Committee dated 08.04.2020 and

16.10.2020, since the respondent/contemnor issued notices in

Form-VIII under Section 5(3) of ROR Act, 1971, as an action to

mutate in revenue records prescribes a procedure for mutation in

MSM,J CC No.1606 of 2021

revenue records and respondent/contemnor followed the due

procedure in order to implement District Level Committee order.

While the matter is under consideration to implement the

order of District Level Committee, (1) Bathena Ramaiah (2) Chinta

Ravi Sanker Reddy (3) Settipalli Venkta Raman and (4) Billa

Daveedu have sent legal notices to the respondent/contemnor

through their counsel on 07.07.2021 claiming that the subject

land in Sy.Nos.135 & 136 respectively of Cherlopalli Village, C.K.

Dinne Mandal, stating that they are the original heirs of the

assignees of the lands in Sy.Nos.135 and 136 which were assigned

during the years 1935 and 1936. Since (1) Bathena Ramaiah

(2) Chinta Ravi Sanker Reddy (3) Settipalli Venkta Raman and (4)

Billa Daveedu are interested parties to the suit schedule property

by their legal notice, the notice in Form-VIII under Section 5(3) of

ROR Act, 1971, were issued to the above individuals. Therefore,

there is absolutely no illegality in the act of the

respondent/contemnor.

The respondent/contemnor also claimed protection for

acting in good faith, in view of Section 11 of the A.P. Dotted Lands

(Updation and Re-settlement Register) Act, 2017, where it is

specified that, no Suit, prosecution or other legal proceedings shall

lie against any officer of the Government for anything done in good

faith under the provisions of the Act or the Rules made thereunder.

It is also further stated that the petitioner should not have

initiated proceedings before this Court and should have contested

O.S.No.592 of 2021 before the Court of Principal Junior Civil

Judge, Kadapa, in a suit for declaration of title and permanent

injunction and it is pending for consideration. He also averred

about pendency of the proceedings and denied willful violation of

MSM,J CC No.1606 of 2021

the order of this Court and requested to dismiss the contempt

case.

During hearing, Sri G. Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for the

petitioner reiterated the contentions urged in the affidavit,

whereas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue placed

on record letter received from the office of the Tahsidlar, C.K.

Dinne Mandal, Kadapa District in Ref.No.B/1714/2020 dated

07.03.2022 wherein it is stated as follows:

"As seen from the entries already made in Column No.6 of webland adangal of concerned Cherlopalli Village of C.K. Dinne Mandal, it is clearly observed that all the total lands measuring Ac.8-75 cents in Sy.No.135 and Ac.8-30 cents in Sy.No.136 of Cherlopalli Village were noted as "Government Land" and stands in favour of the Commissioner, Kadapa Municipal Corporation as pattdar and enjoyer. As earlier, it is a Government Land.

Further, it is submitted that, necessary action should not be able to take for getting incorporation of the changes and to carry out the mutations pertaining to the subject suit lands measuring Ac.3-80 cents in Sy.No.135 and measuring Ac.3-40 cents in Sy.No.136 of Cherlopalli Village of C.K. Dinne Mandal, said to be belonging to the above contempt case petitioners as ordered by the Court, since there is no access of provision in this regard to mutate Government Lands in favour of private persons as of now this option was freezed by the Government.

In the circumstances explained above, I humbly submit that necessary action will be initiated in the matter for getting mutation of the subject suit lands in Sy.Nos.135 and 136 of Cherlopalli Village immediately soon after providing access to Tahsildar to mutate government lands which entered in Column No.6 of webland Adangal as "Government Land" duly obeying the orders of this Court delivered on 22.02.2022 in this regard in favour of the petitioners."

Based on the letter dated 07.03.2022, learned Assistant

Government Pleader for respondent/contemnor submitted that,

there is no willful disobedience or negligence on the part of the

respondent/contemnor and requested to close the contempt case

against respondent/contemnor.

MSM,J CC No.1606 of 2021

As seen from the material on record, this Court issued an

interim order in W.P.No.15697 of 2021 dated 04.08.2021 which

reads as follows:

"At the request of learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue to get instructions, post on 06.08.2021 under the same caption.

Meanwhile, the impugned notice in Ref.No.PTR/1714/2020 DATED 16.07.201 issued by the 3rd respondent is hereby suspended."

The checkered history of the litigation would show that the

respondent/contemnor exhibited negligence at every stage of the

proceedings, despite the order passed by the District Level

Committee for updating the name of this petitioner in the revenue

records. As the respondent/contemnor did not comply with the

order passed by the District Level Committee on 08.04.2020, the

petitioner approached this Court and filed W.P.No.10367 of 2021

dated 15.06.2021, wherein the writ petition is allowed directing the

respondent/contemnor to implement the orders of the Chairman,

District Level Committee, the 2nd respondent therein vide

Proceedings R.Dis.No.REV-SWLA0DT/44/2020 dated 08.04.2020.

Despite it, the respondent/contemnor did not implement the order

of the District Level Committee making necessary changes in the

revenue records, mutating the name of this petitioner. But, the

respondent/contemnor invented a short cut method to avoid

implementation of the order issued by this Court and issued Notice

in Form-VIII under Rule 19(1) of the Rules read with Section 5(3) of

the Act, inventing a different story. When once this Court issued a

direction to implement the direction issued by the District Level

Committee, avoidance to implement the direction inventing one

cause or the other is nothing but a conscious violation of the order

passed by this Court and the negligence or deliberate violation of

MSM,J CC No.1606 of 2021

the respondent/contemnor is writ large on the face of record.

Therefore, the act of the respondent/contemnor in issuing Notice

under Section 5(3) of the Act in Form-VIII read with Rule 19(1) of

the Rules without implementing the order passed by this Court,

despite suspension of Notice can be described as intentional and

deliberate violation of the order passed by this Court, as the

petitioner is aware about the ill-consequences that flow from such

deliberate or intentional violation of the order of this Court.

When once an order is passed, it is the duty of the

authorities to implement the same without giving any

interpretation and if the order is contrary to law, they are at liberty

file appropriate appeal before the appellate authority. But, without

preferring an appeal, the respondent/contemnor cannot interpret

the order and give different meaning to the order passed by the

District Level Committee, which is sought to be implemented, as

directed by this Court and such act of the respondent/contemnor

is illegal in view of the law declared by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in

Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board vs. C. Muddaiah1,

wherein, it is held as follows:

30. Bare reading of the above order makes it more than clear that the salary to be paid to the writ petitioner was from October 27, 1997 to February 28, 1998. It was expressly stated that the writ-petitioner would not be entitled to arrears of pay and allowances for any earlier period "since he has not actually worked in the cadre of Superintendents and Assistant Revenue Officers". It is thus obvious that in spite of clear direction issued by a competent Court, no payment was made and an express order was passed to the effect that the writ- petitioner would not be entitled to pay as he had not worked. The writ-petitioner, therefore, had legitimate grievance against such direction. A fresh substantive petition, hence, could be filed by him and since he was entitled to such relief, the Division Bench was justified in granting the prayer.

31. We are of the considered opinion that once a direction is issued by a competent Court, it has to be obeyed and implemented without any reservation. If an order passed by a Court of Law is not complied with or is ignored, there will be an

(2007) 7 SCC 689

MSM,J CC No.1606 of 2021

end of Rule of Law. If a party against whom such order is made has grievance, the only remedy available to him is to challenge the order by taking appropriate proceedings known to law. But it cannot be made ineffective by not complying with the directions on a specious plea that no such directions could have been issued by the Court. In our judgment, upholding of such argument would result in chaos and confusion and would seriously affect and impair administration of justice. The argument of the Board, therefore, has no force and must be rejected.

32. The matter can be looked at from another angle also. It is true that while granting a relief in favour of a party, the Court must consider the relevant provisions of law and issue appropriate directions keeping in view such provisions. There may, however, be cases where on the facts and in the circumstances, the Court may issue necessary directions in the larger interest of justice keeping in view the principles of justice, equity and good conscience. Take a case, where ex facie injustice has been meted out to an employee. In spite of the fact that he is entitled to certain benefits, they had not been given to him. His representations have been illegally and unjustifiably turned down. He finally approaches a Court of Law. The Court is convinced that gross injustice has been done to him and he was wrongfully, unfairly and with oblique motive deprived of those benefits. The Court, in the circumstances, directs the Authority to extend all benefits which he would have obtained had he not been illegally deprived of them. Is it open to the Authorities in such case to urge that as he has not worked (but held to be illegally deprived), he would not be granted the benefits? Upholding of such plea would amount to allowing a party to take undue advantage of his own wrong. It would perpetrate injustice rather than doing justice to the person wronged. We are conscious and mindful that even in absence of statutory provision, normal rule is 'no work no pay'. In appropriate cases, however, a Court of Law may, nay must, take into account all the facts in their entirety and pass an appropriate order in consonance with law. The Court, in a given case, may hold that the person was willing to work but was illegally and unlawfully not allowed to do so. The Court may in the circumstances, direct the Authority to grant him all benefits considering 'as if he had worked'. It, therefore, cannot be contended as an absolute proposition of law that no direction of payment of consequential benefits can be granted by a Court of Law and if such directions are issued by a Court, the Authority can ignore them even if they had been finally confirmed by the Apex Court of the country (as has been done in the present case). The bald contention of the appellant-Board, therefore, has no substance and must be rejected.

The same view is expressed by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in

Prithawi Nath Ram vs. State of Jharkhand and others2, where

the Court held that, while dealing with an application for

contempt, the Court is really concerned with the question whether

the earlier decision which has received its finality had been

complied with or not. It would not be permissible for a Court to

(2004) 7 SCC 261

MSM,J CC No.1606 of 2021

examine the correctness of the earlier decision which had not been

assailed and to take the view different than what was taken in the

earlier decision If any party concerned is aggrieved by the order

which in its opinion is wrong or against rules or its implementation

is neither practicable nor feasible, it should always either approach

to the Court that passed the order or invoke jurisdiction of the

Appellate Court. Rightness or wrongness of the order cannot be

urged in contempt proceedings. Right or wrong the order has to be

obeyed. Flouting an order of the Court would render the party

liable for contempt. While dealing with an application for contempt

the Court cannot traverse beyond the order, non-compliance of

which is alleged. In other words, it cannot say what should not

have been done or what should have been done. It cannot traverse

beyond the order. It cannot test correctness or otherwise of the

order or give additional direction or delete any direction. That

would be exercising review jurisdiction while dealing with an

application for initiation of contempt proceedings. The same would

be impermissible and indefensible.

In The State of Bihar vs. Rani Sonabati Kumari3, the

Hon‟ble Supreme Court while dealing with violation of order passed

under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of Civil Procedure Court, held

that, a party proceeded against Order XXXIX Rule 2(3) of C.P.C for

disobedience of an order of injunction cannot be held to have

willfully disobeyed the order provided two conditions are satisfied

viz., (1) that the order was ambiguous and was reasonably capable

of more than one interpretation (2) that the party being proceeded

against in fact did not intend to disobey the order, but conducted

himself in accordance with his interpretation of the order. The

AIR 1961 SCC 221

MSM,J CC No.1606 of 2021

question whether a party has understood an order in a particular

manner and has conducted himself in accordance with such a

construction is primarily one of-fact, and where the materials

before the Court do not support such a state of affairs, the Court

cannot attribute an innocent intention based on presumptions, for

the only reason, that ingenuity of Counsel can discover

equivocation in the order which is the subject of enforcement.

Though undoubtedly proceedings under Order XXXIX Rule 2(3) of

C.P.C have a punitive aspect - as is evident from the contemnor

being liable to be ordered to be detained in civil prison, they are in

substance designed to effect the enforcement of or to execute the

order. This is clearly brought out by their identity with the

procedure prescribed by Order XXI Rule 32 of C.P.C for execution

of a decree for permanent injunction. No doubt the State

Government not being a natural person could not be ordered to be

detained in civil prison, On the analogy of Corporations; for which

special provision is made in Order XXXIX Rule V C.P.C, but

beyond that, both when a decree for a permanent injunction is

executed and when an order of temporary injunction is enforced

the liability of the State Government to be proceeded against

appears to us clear.

In view of the principles laid down in the above judgments,

interpretation given by the respondent/contemnor to the order is

prima facie an erroneous approach and contrary to law. Therefore,

the action of the respondent/contemnor in giving interpretation to

the order passed by the District Level Committee which is sought

to be implemented is highly reprehensible and such practice is

depreciable.

MSM,J CC No.1606 of 2021

On the other hand, the respondent/contemnor wanted to

take advantage of the Section 11 of the Andhra Pradesh Dotted

Lands (Updation and Re-settlement Register) Act, 2017, as the

action of the respondent/contemnor is in good faith. In fact, the

respondent/contemnor is not the person who has taken action in

good faith and on the other hand, ex facie, the

respondent/contemnor has exhibited bad faith, as the per material

on record, including the counter affidavit and letter dated

07.03.2022 placed on record by the learned Assistant Government

Pleader for the Contemnor.

The contemnor is not entitled to claim such protection in

contempt proceedings, since it is an independent duty of the Court

to insist implementation of the order that conferred on this Court

under Article 215 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the

respondent/contemnor is disentitled to claim such protection in

the guise of Section 11 of the Andhra Pradesh Dotted Lands

(Updation and Re-settlement Register) Act, 2017.

As discussed above, the respondent/contemnor has

disobeyed the order of this Court deliberately by inventing a

different story. In such case, the contempt jurisdiction is

conferred on the Court of Record by Article 215 of the Constitution

of India. If no such power to punish for contempt, the Court orders

are only a paper tiger without claws and jaws. Reason for

conferring jurisdiction is provide claws and jaws to take

appropriate action against the person, who willfully disobeys the

order of this Court.

The Contempt of Court is defined under Section 2(a) as

follows: "contempt of court means, civil contempt or criminal

MSM,J CC No.1606 of 2021

contempt", Whereas clause (b) of Section 2 defines Civil Contempt

as "willful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order,

writ or other process of a court or willful breach of an undertaking

given to a court."

The Contempt jurisdiction is not conferred on the

Subordinate Courts and it is only conferred on the Court of record,

in view of Article 215 of the Constitution of India. According to it,

the High Court shall be a Court of record and shall have all the

powers of such a Court, including the power to punish for

contempt of itself. The jurisdiction of contempt is independent

jurisdiction of its original nature. Therefore, this Court is

competent to exercise such power to punish a person, who is guilty

of contempt and this jurisdiction is enjoyed by Courts, is only for

the purpose of upholding the jurisdiction of the judicial system

that exists. While exercising this power, the Court must not react

by the emotion, but must act judicially. Contempt proceedings are

intended to ensure compliance of the orders of the Court and strict

adhering of rule of law. Once, the essentials for initiation of

contempt proceedings are satisfied, the Court shall initiate action,

uninfluenced by the nature of direction in a pending lis before the

Court vide judgment in Priya Gupta and others vs. Additional

Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and

others4). Contempt jurisdiction enjoyed by the Courts is only for

the purpose of upholding the majesty of judicial system that exists.

While exercising this power, the Courts must not be hyper

sensitive or swang by emotions, but must act judicially (Vide:

JT 2013 (1) SC 27, 2012 (12) SCALE 289

MSM,J CC No.1606 of 2021

Chairman, West Bengal Administrative Tribunal vs. SK.

Monobbor Hossain5).

"Contempt" is disorderly conduct of contemnor causing

serious damage to the institution of justice administration. Such

conduct, with reference to its adverse effects and consequences,

can be discernibly classified into two categories one which has a

transient effect on the system and/or the person concerned and is

likely to wither by the passage of time while the other causes

permanent damage to the institution and administration of Justice

(Vide: Kalyaneshwari vs. Union of India and others6).

In view of the law laid down in the judgments (referred

supra), when the contemnor deliberately and willfully violated the

order of the Court, he is liable for consequences under Section 12

of the Contempt of Courts Act, but the Court cannot be hyper

sensitive in taking action against the contemnor.

Keeping in view of the law, the Court shall take appropriate

action against the person, who violated the order of this court

willfully, otherwise the Court itself violated its own order and it

may lead to serious consequences. Therefore, to uphold the rule of

law and to see that the order passed by this Court be implemented.

Hence, I find that the respondent is guilty of Civil Contempt, as

defined under Section 2 (b) of the Act and liable for punishment

under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act.

As discussed above, though the direction was issued by this

Court in W.P.No15697 of 2021 dated 04.08.2021 suspending the

Notice in Ref.No.PTR/1714/2020 dated 16.07.2021, the contemnor

(2012)3 SCALE 534

(2011) 6 SCALE 220

MSM,J CC No.1606 of 2021

did not comply the directions issued by this Court for the reasons

best known to him, which is not inconsonance with the direction

issued by this Court. Such conduct of the respondent/contemnor

would directly attracts Civil Contempt and liable for punishment

under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act. Therefore, I find

that the respondent/contemnor is guilty of Civil Contempt and

liable for punishment. The punishment prescribed under Section

12 of the Contempt of Courts Act is with simple imprisonment for a

term which may extend to six (06) months or with fine which may

extend to Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) or with both.

Taking into consideration, the gravity of deliberate and

willful violation of the order of this Court and taking a lenient view

against the contemnor/respondent may amount to failure of the

Court to uphold the law by exercising power under Contempt of

Court Act, I find it is appropriate to impose a simple imprisonment

for a term of six (06) months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-

(Rupees two thousand only). In default, this

respondent/contemnor shall undergo simple imprisonment for a

term of six (06) weeks.

In the result, the Contempt Case is allowed. There shall be

no order as to costs.

Consequently miscellaneous applications pending, if any,

shall also stand closed.

______________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Date:25.03.2022

SP

MSM,J CC No.1606 of 2021

After dictating the above order, learned counsel for

Respondent/Contemnor requested this Court to suspend the above

order, so as to enable him to prefer an appeal.

At request of the learned counsel for Respondent/

Contemnor, the above order is suspended for a period of three (3)

weeks to prefer an appeal. In case no appeal is preferred or no stay

is granted by the Appellate Court in the appeal, if any preferred,

Respondent/Contemnor shall surrender before Registrar (Judicial),

High Court of Andhra Pradesh on 18.04.2022 before 05.00 p.m to

undergo sentence.

_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY