Parvathaneni Rambabu, vs Sri Katamaneni Bhaskar,
2023 Latest Caselaw 5154 AP

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA


                   CONTEMPT CASE No.229 OF 2017

ORDER:-


1.    This Contempt Case has been filed complaining willful disobedience

in implementing the Order dated 07.09.2016 in WPMP No.32211 of 2016 in

W.P.No.26058 of 2016.


2.    Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned counsel

appearing for the respondents and perused the material available on

record.

3. The petitioner herein filed WPMP No.32211 of 2016 in W.P.No.26058

of 2016 before this Court to direct the 5th respondent -Sub-Registrar,

Chinthalapudi Sub Division, Chintalapudi, West Godavari District to

register the sale deed/mortgage/lease or any such document presented by

the petitioner for Sy.No.1/1B-1 to 10, admeasuring an extent of Ac.6-50

cents situate at Gonnepalli Village, Chinthalapudi Mandal, West Godavari

District, pending disposal of W.P.No.26058 of 2016.

4. On 07.09.2016, this Court in WPMP No.32211 of 2016 in

W.P.No.26058 of 2016, passed the following Order:

"Though this Court on 05.08.2016 directed the 3rd respondent to furnish the details of the subject land and the 5 th respondent to explain by way NV,J CC.No.229 of 2017

of an affidavit, on what basis the land in Survey No.1 of Gonnepalli Village was shown as assigned land', the same were not produced before this Court when the matter is listed on 24.08.2016 and the learned Assistant Government Pleader again sought time for producing such affidavit.

Again when the matter is listed today, learned Assistant Government Pleader again seeks time for filing the aforesaid affidavit.

It goes to show that there is no basis for showing the land in Survey No.1 of Gonnepalli Village as assigned land.

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that in similar circumstances this Court allowed the Writ Petition No.23479 of 2010 on 28.10.2010.

In view of the above, there shall be interim direction as prayed for."

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, pursuant to the

direction issued by this Court, the petitioner submitted an application

before the Sub-Registrar, Chintalapudi i.e. the 5th respondent and the 5th

respondent passed an order dated 20.01.2017 rejecting for registration of

the document on the ground that the name of the seller in the sale deed did

not match with the pattadar name, hence returned the proposed sale deed.

6. Learned counsel would submit that the revenue software referred by

the Sub-Registrar pertains to the mutation proceedings as pattadar. The

petitioner also filed an application through Mee Seva for mutation and for

the title deed-cum-e-passbook to the Tahsildar, Chintalapudi Mandal. The

said application has been rejected without giving any reasons and

thereafter the Sub-Registrar has refused to register the same. The said

application has been rejected without giving any reasons and thereafter the

Sub-Registrar has refused to register the same. The revenue software, as NV,J CC.No.229 of 2017

relied by the Sub-Registrar has nothing to do with registration of the sale

deed under the provisions of the Act and Rules made thereunder. Inspite of

the copy of the order being furnished to Respondent Nos.3 and 5, the 3rd

respondent did not mutate the name in the revenue records and the 5th

respondent did not register the document in pursuance of the orders of this

Court dated 07.09.2016, which is nothing but willful violation of the orders

of this Court. Therefore, non-registration of the document/sale deed in the

light of the Orders of this Court clearly amounts to Contempt of Court. It is

submitted that, the respondents have no intention to implement the orders

of this Court and they are deliberately flouting the orders of this Court on

one pretext or the other. The failure on the part of the respondents in

implementing the orders of this Court would amount to willful disobedience

of the orders of this Hon‟ble Court and, therefore, they are liable for

punishment under Sections of 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act.

Complaining the same, the petitioner has filed the present Contempt Case.

7. Respondent No.2 filed counter affidavit on behalf of Respondent No.1

also, contending that, this Court has directed the 5th respondent to register

the sale deed/mortgage/lease or any such document presented by the

petitioner for Sy.No.1/1B-1 to 10, admeasuring an extent of Ac.6-50 cents

situated at Gonepalli Village, Chintalapudi Mandal, West Godavari District.

It is submitted that, in the said order, there is no direction to Respondent

Nos.2 & 3 and since there is no direction to Respondent Nos.1 & 2, NV,J CC.No.229 of 2017

question of non-implementation of interim orders passed by this Court does

not arise and requested to close the contempt case against

Respondent Nos.1 & 2.

8. Respondent No.3, filed counter affidavit, admitting about passing of

interim orders by this Court on 07.09.2016. He submits that, after passing

the interim orders by this Court, the petitioner has executed a sale deed

dated 10.01.2017 in favour of one Parvathaneni Ramesh and presented the

same before the Sub-Registrar on 20.01.2017.

9. He further submits that, the Chief Commissioner of Land

Administration, A.P., Hyderabad issued Circular No.2/162/1/2012 dated

02.07.2013 stating that when the applicant approaches the Sub-Registrar

for Registration with the required documents such as Aadhar Card or other

ID cards, Pattadar Passbooks and Title Deed and ROR 1B, the Sub-

Registrar should verify the seller particulars with pattadar name in

webland records. In case, if seller name matches with the pattadar name in

webland software, registration will be done at SRO‟s end and registration

particulars will be automatically processed through CARD software to

webland software. In case, if the seller name does not match with pattadar

name, SRO should not register the document and should guide the seller to

approach Meeseva centre to apply for mutation and further requested the

Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration of Stamps to issue

instructions in this regard.

NV,J CC.No.229 of 2017

10. He further submitted that, as per the circular issued by the

Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration of Stamps, the

particulars of the Seller should match with the particulars in the webland

provided by the Revenue Department in which it was reflected and in

whose name the property stands with. He further submitted that, when

the petitioner presented the document before the Sub-Registrar on

20.01.2017, the Sub-Registrar noticed that the name of the petitioner is not

tallying with the webland records. As the name of the Seller is not tallying

with the webland records, he returned the document vide letter dated

20.01.2017.

11. The respondents have filed affidavits asserting that they have not

committed any act in disobedience of the order of the Court and the

contempt petition is liable to be dismissed.

12. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel

appearing for the Respondent Nos.1,2 & 3 and perused the record.

13. As seen from the material on record, a clear direction was issued to

the the Sub-Registrar, Chintalapudi to register the sale

deed/mortgage/lease or any such document presented by the petitioner.

Despite, the direction issued by this Court, the Sub-Registrar/Contemnor

did not bother to register the sale deed of the petitioner and it is a clear

intentional violation of the direction issued by this Court and consequently NV,J CC.No.229 of 2017

the action of the 3rd respondent prima facie indicates that he had disobeyed

the order of this Court wantonly, pleading lame excuses on the Circular

dated 02.07.2023.

14. When this Court directed the Tahsidlar to furnish the details of the

subject land and the Sub-Registrar to explain by way of an affidavit, on

what basis the land in Survey No.1 of Gonnepalli Village was shown as

„assigned land‟, the same was not produced before this Court. Since, there

was no basis for showing the land in Survey No.1 of Gonnepalli Village as

„assigned land‟, this Court issued interim direction in favour of the

petitioner.

15. Even as on today, both in W.P.No.26058 of 2016 and C.C.No.229 of

2017, though the respondents have filed their respective counter affidavits,

denying material allegations, the respondents neither replied nor referred

as to the nature of land, but conveniently avoided about mentioning the

same.

16. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 07.09.2016, the

petitioner submitted an application to the Sub-Registrar on 24.09.2016

requesting to register the document, making a reference about the interim

direction passed by this Court in the said application. But, for the reasons

best known, the Sub-Registrar, Chintalapudi kept the application pending

for more than four months and thereafter, returned the application on NV,J CC.No.229 of 2017

20.01.2017 on the guise of the Circular dated 02.07.2013. The conduct of

the 3rd respondent herein -Sub-Registrar, Chintalapudi is not acceptable.

Nothing prevented the Sub-Registrar to act upon the representation of the

petitioner for four months. Even after this Court passed an interim

direction, he did not oblige the same and conveniently returned the sale

document on the guise of Circular dated 02.07.2013. Therefore, I find

prima facie that the respondents have committed contempt within the

provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

17. The Court can impose penalty against a person who wilfully

disobeyed the order of this Court. In the present case, a direction was

issued to register the sale deed of the petitioner in accordance with law.

But, the 3rd respondent did not obey the direction issued by this Court. The

3rd respondent pleaded that, based on the Circular of the Commissioner

and Inspector General of Registration of Stamps dated 17.07.2013, he had

not registered the sale deed.

18. In Ashok Paper Kamgar Union and Ors. vs Dharam Godha And

Ors 1 , the Supreme Court examined the provision of Section 2(b) of

the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 that defines the term civil contempt and

held that the term „Willful‟ under Section 2(b) means an act or omission

which is done voluntarily and intentionally and with the specific intent to

AIR 2004 SC 105 NV,J CC.No.229 of 2017

do something while the law forbids or with the specific intent to fail to do

something the law requires to be done, that is to say with bad purpose

either to disobey or to disregard the law. It signifies a deliberate action done

with evil intent or with a bad motive or purpose. Therefore, in order to

constitute contempt the order of the Court must be of such a nature which

is capable of execution by the person charged in normal circumstances. It

should not require any extra ordinary effort nor should be dependent,

either wholly or in part, upon any act or omission of a third party for its

compliance. This has to be judged having regard to the facts and

circumstances of each case.

19. In A. Badhrachalam v. Dr. K. Sathyagopal2, the Madras High Court

made an attempt to decide the issue as to what amounts to contempt

where the contempt was filed beyond the limitation of one year. But the

Court noted the principle laid down in Morris v. Crown Office 3 , where

Lord Dening wrote that, "Of all the places where law and order must be

maintained, it is here in these Courts. The Courts of Justice must not be

deflected or interfered with. Those who strike at it, strike at the very

foundations of our society." "To maintain Law and Order, the Judges have,

and must have, power at once to deal with those who offend against it" " It

is a great power - a power instantly to imprison a person without trial - but

it is a necessary power".

C.C.No.2497 of 2018 dated 07.02.2019

(1970) 1 All ER 1079 at 1081 NV,J CC.No.229 of 2017

20. Article 215 of the Constitution of India empowers every High Court to

punish contempt of Court subordinate to it, but Contempt of Courts

Act lays down how that power is to be exercised. Article 215 and provisions

of the Contempt of Courts Act have to be read together. The Hon‟ble Apex

Court has emphasized that Section 20 applies to civil and criminal

contempts and would also apply to the contempt committed on the face of

High Court or the Supreme Court or even Subordinate Courts. Where there

is a limitation for initiation of proceedings of contempt under Section 20 of

the Act, the Rules of Code provide that no notice shall be issued if more

than one year has lapsed from the alleged act of contempt.

21. Thus, from the principles laid down in the above judgments referred

supra, it is for the Court to implement its order, since it is the first place

where the order is to be implemented, otherwise it would defeat the

purpose of passing the order by this Court. In the present case, the 3rd

respondent did not care for implementation of the direction issued by this

Court and on the other hand, leisurely took up the proceedings and

returned the sale document to the petitioner, which indicates that the 3rd

respondent in most casual manner, returned the sale document and did

not take any steps to register the said document.

22. The purpose of law of contempt is to protect the machinery of justice

and the interests of the public in order to protect these dual interests, NV,J CC.No.229 of 2017

unwarranted interference with administration of justice must be prevented.

The power to punish for contempt is conferred on Courts for two reasons.

Firstly, that the Courts may be armed with the power to enforce their

orders, Secondly, they may be able to punish obstruction to the

administration of justice. To ensure these objectives, there are also

constitutional provisions dealing with contempt of Courts, apart

from Contempt of Courts Act. Under Article 215 of the Constitution of India

a Court of record is a Court, the records of which are admitted to be

evidentiary value and not to be questioned when produced before any

Court. Such a Court enjoys a power to punish for contempt as its inherent

jurisdiction. The impression created by the Court is that even if Article

129 and 215 were not there in Constitution the contempt powers of Courts

of record would have been preserved. However the High Courts have to

exercise his powers keeping in mind Section 20 of Contempt of Courts Act.

23. Thus, in view of the law declared by the Hon‟ble Apex Court and

various High Courts, obviously the power is conferred upon the Courts

under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, whatever to be exercised,

keeping in mind the limitation prescribed under Section 20 of the Contempt

of Courts Act. In the present case, though the contempt is within limitation,

but the violation is wilful or not is to be examined. However, as discussed

above, Respondent No. 3 caused substantial delay of more than four

months in taking up proceedings to act upon the representation. In such NV,J CC.No.229 of 2017

case, the Court cannot take liberal approach and stern action is to be taken

against the 3rd Respondent, who wilfully disobeyed the order of this Court,

since he is conscious about the direction issued by this Court and pleading

any amount of ignorance about the orders is not an excuse, being a public

officer while discharging public duty. Therefore, Respondent No. 3 be

punished appropriately, as held by the Apex Court in Bar Association v.

Union of India 4 , where the Apex Court dwelled into the Constitutional

power vested in it under Article 129 read with Article 142(2) of the

Constitution of India and the power of the High Court under Article 215 of

the Constitution to punish for contempt and held that, that no act of

parliament can take away the inherent jurisdiction of the Court of Record

to punish for contempt and the Parliament‟s power of legislation on the

subject cannot, therefore, be so exercised as to stultify the status and

dignity of the Supreme Court and/or the High Courts, though such a

legislation may serve as a guide for the determination of the nature of

punishment which this court may impose in the case of established

contempt.

24. In Sudhakar Prasad vs. Govt. of A.P. and Ors5, the Supreme Court

once again declared that the powers of contempt are inherent in nature and

the provisions of the Constitution only recognize the said pre-existing

situation. That the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 are in

(1998) 4 SCC 409

(2001) 1 SCC 516 NV,J CC.No.229 of 2017

addition to and not in derogation of Articles 129 and 215 of the

Constitution. The provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 cannot be

used for limiting or regulating the exercise of jurisdiction contemplated by

the said two Articles. The Apex Court also made further observation that,

the High Court cannot create or assume power to inflict a new type of

punishment other than the one recognized and accepted by Section 12 of

the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

25. In Hon‟ble Apex Court in Prithawi Nath Ram vs. State of

Jharkhand and others6, 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 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

(2004) 7 SCC 261 NV,J CC.No.229 of 2017

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.

26. In The State of Bihar vs. Rani Sonabati Kumari 7 , 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

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

AIR 1961 SCC 221 NV,J CC.No.229 of 2017

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.

27. Applying the principle laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court to the

present facts of the case, this Court can safely conclude that, Respondent

No.3/Contemnor, in utter disobedience of the order passed by this Court

dated 07.09.2016, consciously violated the order and did not register the

sale deed/document, despite subsistence of the interim direction order

passed by this Court. Such conduct would not only impede the rule of law,

but also cause serious disrespect to the judicial institution and judicial

administration. Therefore, such conduct of Respondent No.3/Contemnor NV,J CC.No.229 of 2017

cannot be encouraged by this Court, taking lenient view against such

person who caused serious threat to the judicial administration and Rule of

Law.

28. As discussed above, and in view of the findings recorded by this

Court in the above paragraphs, Respondent No.3/Contemnor is liable for

punishment as per Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and

thereby he is punished sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for

a term of three (03) months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two

thousand only). In the event of failure to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-, Registrar

(Judicial) is directed to send copy of the order to the District Collector, West

Godavari for recovery of amount of fine under the Andhra Pradesh Revenue

Recovery Act, 1864 and by following procedure as per law.

29. In the result, contempt case is allowed, directing

Respondent No.3/ Contemnor to undergo simple imprisonment for a term

of three (03) months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand

only). Registrar (Judicial) is directed to send copy of the order to the

District Collector, West Godavari District for recovery of amount of fine

under the Andhra Pradesh Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 and by following

procedure as per law.

____________________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA Date:20.10.2023 SP NV,J CC.No.229 of 2017

30. After pronouncing the above order, learned counsel for Respondent

No.3/Contemnor requested this Court to suspend the above order, so as to

enable him to prefer an appeal.

31. At request of the learned counsel for Respondent No.3/Contemnor,

the above order is suspended for a period of two (02) weeks to prefer

appeal. In case no appeal is preferred, Respondent No.3/Contemnor shall

surrender before the Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Andhra Pradesh, on

03.11.2023 to undergo sentence. On his appearance, the Registrar

(Judicial) shall commit him to civil prison in accordance with the order

passed above.

32. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand

closed.

____________________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA Date:20.10.2023

SP