Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Smt Kirthi Chekuri vs Kappagantu Jankiram Sarma, on 3 October, 2024
Author: R Raghunandan Rao
Bench: R Raghunandan Rao
APHC010006962024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3488]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF OCTOBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
CONTEMPT APPEAL NO: 3/2024
Between:
Smt Kirthi Chekuri ...APPLICANT
AND
Kappagantu Jankiram Sarma and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Applicant:
1. KASA JAGANMOHAN REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. J.V.PHANIDUTH
The Court made the following Judgment:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)
The 1st respondent herein, had filed W.P.No.18765 of 2021 with the
complaint that the Municipal Corporation of Guntur had constructed and
was running a Municipal High School in the land belonging to the 3rd
respondent Satram, which was impleaded as respondent No.3 in the writ
petition, without payment of any rent and that the said 3rd respondent-
Satram was not taking any steps to evict the Municipal Corporation from
the said land.
RRR,J & HN,J
2. On 12.04.2022, a learned Single Judge of this Court, by way
of an interlocutory order, had directed the Municipal High School
represented by the Commissioner, Guntur Municipal Corporation to pay
an admitted amount of Rs.25,01,400/- to the 3rd respondent-Satram
therein, within a period of four weeks, and also to pay the rent per month
by calculating the rent at the rate of Rs.2/- per sq. yard. It appears that
the said order was amended by a separate order of the learned Single
Judge, dated 30.04.2022, in I.A.No.1 of 2022, to read as rent of Rs.2/- per
sq. feet instead of Rs.2/- per sq. yard.
3. Contempt Case No.2120 of 2022 was filed, on the ground
that the orders of the learned Single Judge, dated 12.04.2022, had been
violated. It is the admitted case, on all sides, that the Municipal
Corporation paid an amount of Rs.25,01,400/- by way of cheque
No.009490, dated 06.07.2022 and another sum of Rs.39,600/- by way of
cheque No.009619 dated 17.09.2022 towards rent for the months from
April 2020 to September 2022, calculated at the rate of Rs.2/- per sq.
yard.
4. After such payment, the Convener of the Satram is said to
have addressed a letter dated 20.09.2022 informing the Commissioner,
Guntur Municipal Corporation that the rent for the period April 2020
onwards would have to be calculated at the rate of Rs.2/- per sq. feet and
RRR,J & HN,J
the balance amount payable was Rs.3,16,800/- for the period April 2020
to September, 2022.
5. After this demand and communications, a counter affidavit
was filed on behalf of the appellant herein, stating that the payment of
Rs.25,01,400/- was in accordance with the orders of the Court dated
12.04.2022 and the subsequent amendment, dated 30.04.2022, changing
the rate of rent from Rs.2/- per sq. yard to Rs.2/- per sq. feet was not part
of the order dated 12.04.2022 and consequently, the said variation would
not fall within the purview of the contempt case as the contempt case had
been filed for violation of the orders of the learned Single Judge dated
12.04.2022. The counter also stated that the rate of rent was something
which has to be resolved between the Municipal Corporation and the
Satram and necessary steps were being taken for that purpose and that
there was no wilful disobedience of the orders of this Court.
6. The learned Single Judge, after considering the said
contentions, and after hearing both sides, had held that the correction of
rate of rent from Rs.2/- per sq. yard to Rs.2/- per sq. feet was actually a
typographical error as the correspondence as well as the material before
the Court clearly demonstrate that the rent was being sought at the rate of
Rs.2/- per sq. feet and not Rs.2/- per sq. yard. The learned Single Judge,
after arriving at this finding also held that non-payment of rent for the
subsequent months from April 2020 at the rate of Rs.2/- per sq. feet
RRR,J & HN,J
amounts to violation of the orders of the Court and convicted the
appellant herein under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
The learned single Judge, after such conviction, sentenced the appellant
to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of
Rs.2,000/-.
7. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has filed the
present contempt appeal.
8. The primary grounds of appeal, raised by the appellant are
that the 3rd respondent-Satram was due an amount of Rs.63,91,661/- as
municipal tax to the Municipal Corporation and this was sought to be set
off against the rent payable to the Satram and consequently, there would
be no violation of the orders, even if the rent were to be calculated at the
rate of 2/- per sq. feet; O.A.No.302/2021 had already been filed by the
respondent-Satram before the Endowment Tribunal for eviction and
recovery of rent and the corporation was seeking to dispute title of the
Satram over the land as well as the rate of rent, and accordingly, the
finding that there was violation of the orders of the Court may not be
warranted; the very title of the Satram over the land in question was in
dispute and the same was also before this Court by way of W.P.No.16576
of 2023 filed by the Satram against the orders of the Municipal
Corporation dated 30.01.2023; and that the Municipal Corporation had
already moved the Endowments Department for annulment of the entries
RRR,J & HN,J
made in favour of the Satram, in the register maintained under Section 43
of the Endowments Act, 1988.
9. Sri Kasa Jaganmohan Reddy, learned counsel appearing for
the appellant relies upon the letter dated 12.07.2016 said to have been
addressed by the then Commissioner, Guntur Municipal Corporation to
the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments Department wherein the rate
of rent was taken as Rs.2/- per sq. yard and the arrears of rent of
Rs.25,01,400/- had been arrived at on the basis of this calculation. He
would contend that negotiations had been going on between the
Municipal Corporation as well as the Endowment Department for the
adjustment of the dues of the Municipal Corporation against the tax dues
of the Satram, and consequently, it cannot be held that the Municipal
Corporation, and more particularly the appellant, had not paid the rents
due to the Satram.
10. Sri J.V. Phanidoot, learned counsel appearing for the 1st
respondent / writ petitioner contends that the order of the learned Single
Judge, dated 12.04.2022, as amended on 30.04.2022 is clear and
unambiguous and the monthly rent from April 2020 would have to be
calculated at the rate of Rs.2/- per sq. feet, which would mean that the
payment of Rs.39,600/- towards rent for April 2020 to September, 2022
would not amount to compliance of the directions of this Court as an
RRR,J & HN,J
amount of Rs.3,16,800/- would still be due, if the rent is taken at the rate
of Rs.2/- per sq. feet.
11. Learned Single Judge had held the appellant guilty of
contempt of Court on the ground that the contention of the appellant, that
the amended order dated 30.04.2022 is beyond the scope of the
contempt case, is not tenable and that she had failed to comply with the
orders of the Court.
12. The contention of the appellant that there is a dispute with
regard to the title to the property claimed by the Satram and the 1st
respondent and that it is the subject matter of various litigations before
the Tribunal and before this Court, would not be relevant to the question
of whether the directions of the learned Single Judge have been complied
with or not. As the order of the learned Single Judge remains in force, this
Court would only look at whether such an order has been complied with
or not.
13. The letter dated 22.09.2022 addressed by the appellant to
the Convener of the Satram shows that the appellant had called upon the
Satram to cooperate in fixation of tax dues so that the same may be
adjusted against the tax dues. The said request cannot be treated to be
an unreasonable attempt to circumvent the orders of the Court. Any
payment of rent to the Satram would be out of the public funds and in
such circumstances, the course of action adopted by the appellant to
RRR,J & HN,J
conserve public funds, by adjusting the rents, directed to be paid by the
order of the learned Single Judge, dated 12.04.2022, against the Tax
dues of the Satram, would not require public funds to be spent, and
instead, result in recovery of taxes that would be due from the Satram.
14. The learned Single Judge, had not taken into account the
contention of the appellant, that the Satram remains due an amount of
Rs.63,91,661/- towards the municipal tax, and that the Municipal
Corporation is seeking to pay the rents to the Satram, by adjusting the
taxes due to the Municipal corporation.
15. In such circumstances, it would not be safe to hold that the
appellant had violated the orders of the Court deliberately or had refused
to comply with the orders of the Court without sufficient cause.
16. This cannot mean that the Municipal Corporation can evade
payment of rent as directed by the learned Single Judge, for an
interminable period. It shall be open to the private respondent to initiate
fresh contempt against the present incumbent or such future incumbents
to the post of Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, as deemed fit, if the
issue relating to adjustment of rents against the tax payable by the
respondent-Satram is not settled within six weeks from the date of this
order and the rents either not adjusted against tax dues or paid in cash
thereafter.
RRR,J & HN,J
17. In the circumstances, it would be appropriate to allow the
contempt appeal setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge in
C.C.No.2120 of 2022 dated 12.12.2023. There shall be no order as to
costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed.
R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO,J
HARINATH.N,J
Js.
RRR,J & HN,J
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
And
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
3rd October, 2024
Js.
