R. Sobha, I.F.S. vs Mohd. Sirajuddin
2021 Latest Caselaw 2377 Tel

Item Nos.18-23

     THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
                        AND
     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY

                 CA.Nos.14, 15, 16, 17, 18 & 19 OF 2021

COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Hima Kohli)


1.    All the present appeals arise from a common order dated

13.07.2021, passed by the learned Single Judge in C.C.No.1779 of

2015 filed by the respondents stating inter alia that the appellants

deserve to be punished for violating/disobeying the order dated

04.12.2009, passed in W.P.No.9526 of 2009.

2. On 04.12.2009, the following order was passed by the learned

Single Judge:-

"The petitioners claims to be owners of 383 acres of land in Survey No.222/1 to 222/20 of Maheshwaram Village, Ranga Reddy District. Steps under A.P. Forest Act, 1967, ('the Act' for brevity) were initiated for notifying the said land as Reserve Forest. Ultimately, a notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued, vide G.O.Ms.No.1, EFF & T (For.I) Department dated 04.01.1999 and it was published in the Gazette on 23.07.1999. It was followed by a notification dated 28.09.1999 under Section 6 of the Act. Lot of correspondence ensued thereafter. Writ Petition Nos.21771 of 2009 and 1980 of 2009 were filed, claiming various reliefs in respect of the land. These writ petitions were dismissed by this court on 30.04.2009, and the petitioners therein, were directed to wait till the proceedings that commenced under the Act reach finality and the land is cleared from the operation of the A.P. Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.

It is stated that the Forest Settlement Officer, Hyderabad - the 6th respondent herein, addressed letter dated 08.01.2008 to the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District - 5th respondent herein, stating inter alia that it is no longer possible and feasible to carry the proceedings further and that the land be excluded from the proposals of converting into a Reserve Forest. The grievance of the petitioner is that, no action has been taken thereon, and their rights are in jeopardy. They pray for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the authorities of the Forest Department to take further steps, as desired by the 6th respondent, and to handover the land to them forthwith.

Heard Sri J.Prabhakar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Forests.

It is a matter on record that the land in Survey No.222/1 to 222/20 of Maheshwaram Village, Ranga Reddy District was notified for formation of Reserve Forest. The proceedings did not reach finality on account of various reasons. The 6th respondent has addressed letter dated 08.01.2008 indicating certain course of action. The decision in this regard has to be taken at various levels. The 5th respondent alone is not the authority to decide the matter finally. That, however, cannot be a ground for the respondents to continue the uncertainty for decades together. The exercise of statutory power, in one way or the other, must not take such a long time, particularly, when the owners of the land are prevented from using the land or to deal with the same otherwise. An early action is in the interest of all.

Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing that respondents 1 to 6 shall finalise the issue relating to the acquisition of the land in Survey No.222/1 to 222/20 in Maheshwaram Village, Ranga Reddy District for the purpose of conversion thereto into Reserve Forest, within a period of

six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs."

3. Mr. Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

appellants submits that after the captioned writ petition was disposed

of directing the respondents No.1 to 6 to finalize the issue relating to

acquisition of the subject land within a period of six months, orders

dated 23.04.2010 and 03.06.2010 were passed by the Forest

Settlement Officer stating inter alia that the claim of the respondents

along with the evidence produced by them was verified in the context

of the revenue records and it was found that the subject land was

covered under the Land Ceiling Act and further, that the said land had

been declared as surplus land. As a result, their claims were rejected.

4. The bone of contention in the present case relates to service of

the aforesaid orders on the respondents. While the appellants claim

that all necessary efforts were made to serve the respondent with

aforesaid orders, the same has been vehemently denied by

Mr. V. Ravinder Rao, learned Senior counsel appearing for the

respondents, who refers to the counter affidavit filed by the

respondent No.5/appellant in C.A.No.18 of 2021, wherein it has been

stated that efforts were made to serve the respondents with the said

orders, but they were not found in the village.

5. Mr. Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

appellants states that the law of limitation for filing a contempt

petition prescribes a period of one year from the date on which the

contempt is alleged to have been committed. In the instant case, the

appellants had complied with the order dated 04.12.2009 passed in the

captioned petition within a period of six months, as granted and if the

respondents had any grievance against the said orders, it was for them

to seek appropriate legal recourse. Instead, after waiting for five

years, they filed a stale contempt petition. This fact was also stated

before the learned Single Judge, but was over looked.

6. Mr. V. Ravinder Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

respondents does not deny the fact that the contempt petition came to

be filed after over five years reckoned from the date of passing of the

orders dated 23.04.2010 and 03.06.2010. He states that aggrieved by

the aforesaid orders, the respondents had submitted a representation

dated 15.09.2010 to the State Government on which an order dated

29.06.2011 was passed.

7. We are afraid, the events subsequent to passing of the order

dated 04.12.2009 in W.P.No.9526 of 2009, cannot engage this court in

contempt proceedings. The scope of a contempt petition is limited to

pointing out wilful breach/default of compliance of a court order and

not for pointing out events that occurred subsequent to the

compliances made of the order passed. If the respondents had a

grievance against the orders dated 23.04.2010 and 03.06.2010, it was

for them to seek appropriate legal recourse. However, the route

adopted by the respondents of invoking the provisions of Sections 10

and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short, 'the Act'), was

not available to them.

8. At this stage, learned Senior counsel appearing for the

respondents states that the respondents may be permitted to reserve

their right to seek appropriate legal recourse against the official

respondents relating to the orders dated 23.04.2010 and 03.06.2010 as

also for non-compliance of the order dated 29.06.2011, issued by the

Government on the representation dated 15.09.2010, submitted by the

respondents.

9. Mr. Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

appellants states that as he has not been apprised of the nature of the

order passed by the Government on 29.06.2011 and therefore no

concession on the part of the State government may be recorded in

this regard.

10. We are of the opinion that the contempt petition having been

filed highly belated by the respondents, was not maintainable in the

light of the limitation prescribed under Section 20 of the Contempt of

Courts Act. The respondents ought to have sought appropriate legal

recourse against the orders dated 23.04.2010 and 03.06.2010 passed

by the Divisional Forest Officer, if so aggrieved.

11. The present appeals are accordingly allowed along with the

pending applications, if any, and the impugned order dated

30.07.2021, is quashed and set aside on the ground that the contempt

petition filed by the respondents was barred by limitation. However,

liberty is granted to the respondents to seek appropriate legal recourse,

if aggrieved by the orders dated 23.04.2010 and 03.06.2010 or on the

basis of any further cause of action that may have arisen in their

favour, in accordance with law.

_________________ HIMA KOHLI, CJ

______________________ B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J 16.08.2021 ES/PLN