Ummenthala Mutha Reddy And 10 ... vs Sri D. Krishna Bhaskar And 2 Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 585 Tel

 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO


                   Contempt Case No.298 of 2020


ORDER :

This Contempt Case is preferred by the petitioners to punish the

respondents for willful disobedience of the order dt.12.10.2018 in

I.A.No.1 of 2018 in Writ Petition No.37623 of 2018 passed by this

Court under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

2. Petitioners are land owners and small farmers of agricultural

lands in Anantagiri village, Illanthakunta Mandal, Rajanna Sircilla

District of erstwhile Karimnagar District. Their lands along with

those of others were acquired for construction of Anantagiri Reservoir

under Kaleswaram Project Package No.10 under two preliminary

notifications issued under Section 11(1) of the Right to Fair

Compensation, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act 30 of

2013). The first of such notifications was published in the Telangana

Gazette No.01, dt.08.05.2016, for Acs.69.22 ½ gts. and the second

such notification was published in proceeding No.G/555/2017

dt.01.02.2017 for Acs.257.37 gts.

3. Petitioners filed the above Writ Petition in October, 2018

contending that the respondents in the Writ Petition did not follow any

mandatory procedure with regard to conduct of Grama Sabha under

Section 11(2) of the said Act, updating of land records under Section

11(5) of the Act, affording personal hearing on objections filed under

Section 15(2) of the Act and procedures relating to determination of

Resettlement and Rehabilitation entitlements as per Sections 16 to 18

of the said Act. It is also contended that the District Collector did not

revise and update the market value of the lands as per third proviso to

Sub-Section (3) of Section 26 of the Act. They alleged that without

following the above mandatory procedures two declarations under

Section 19(1) of the Act were issued vide proceedings No.G/555/2017

dt.01.01.2017 and 16.05.2017. They alleged that their names were

mentioned in these two declarations. Details of lands of petitioners

are mentioned in an Annexure filed to the affidavit in the Writ

Petition.

4. It is also pointed out that during award enquiry, and before

passing of awards, petitioners represented that they were not satisfied

with compensation being determined by the respondents and that they

pointed out that issues regarding measurement of land, structures and

apportionment of compensation were brought to the notice of the

respondents and that the respondents ignored the same and passed

awards without properly assessing compensation. They alleged that

some of the petitioners took compensation under protest.

5. Petitioners contended that the respondents did not pass

complete awards under Section 23 of the Act, but have passed awards

only for compensation under Section 30 of the Act and that

Resettlement and Rehabilitation Award under Section 31 of the Act for

depriving petitioners of their agricultural lands, have not been passed

by the date of filing of the Writ Petitions and even now. According to

them, the process of house-hold survey, enumeration of eligible

Project-Affected families and determination of Resettlement and

Rehabilitation entitlements for each family are also not finalized yet,

and that none of the petitioners were paid any Rehabilitation and

Resettlement entitlements as per II Schedule to the Act.

6. They contended that according to Section 38 of the Act the

respondents are barred from taking possession of the lands or

commence any work without paying full compensation as well as

Rehabilitation and Resettlement entitlements to the petitioners.

Order dt.12.10.2018 in I.A.No.1 of 2018

7. They had filed I.A.No.1 of 2018 to restrain the respondents

from taking possession of their agricultural lands mentioned in the

declarations issued on 01.01.2017 and 16.05.2017 under Section 19(1)

of the Act and to restrain the respondents from taking up any further

construction works in the said lands pending disposal of the Writ

Petition.

8. On 12.10.2018, in I.A.No.1 of 2018 in W.P.No.37623 of 2018

this Court passed the following order :

"Petitioners contend that no relief and rehabilitation benefits have been paid to them under Section 31 of Act 30 of 2013 and that under Section 38, petitioners cannot be dispossessed till such payment.

Learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition seeks time to get instructions.

Therefore, there shall be interim direction as prayed for."

The instant Contempt Case

9. This Contempt Case has been filed stating that the above

interim order has been violated by the respondent nos.1 to 3.

10. The 1st respondent is the District Collector of Rajanna Sircilla

District. The 2nd respondent is the Joint Collector and Administrator,

Rehabilitation and Resettlement, Rajanna Sircilla District. The 3rd

respondent is the Land Acquisition Officer - cum - Revenue

Divisional Officer, Rajanna Sircilla Division, Rajanna Sircilla

District.

11. Petitioners contend that the above interim order was

communicated by petitioners to the 3rd respondent on 22.10.2018 and

he was requested not to further damage crops and lands; that works

were temporarily stopped for a brief period; but in March, 2019,

works were taken up in some of the lands which are subject matter of

the Writ Petition. It is contended that a representation dt.27.03.2019

was submitted by the petitioners to the 3rd respondent specifying the

survey numbers of the lands where the works were started, but he did

nothing. Instead the petitioners were threatened by the police

employed by the respondents for opposing the said acts.

12. Petitioners contended that as a result of the works carried out by

the respondents, their lands got submerged with water from upstream

in October, 2019 and that under 2nd proviso to Section 38 of the Act

the respondents could not have caused such submergence without

paying Rehabilitation and Resettlement entitlements at least 6 months

before the date of the award under Section 30 of the Act. Petitioners

contend that standing paddy crop and other crops raised by them were

damaged and there was also loss on account of income and livelihood.

Photographs of the submerged lands were filed along with the

affidavit filed in support of the Contempt Case.

13. Petitioners contend that though they represented on 11.10.2019

and 15.10.2019 to the 3rd respondent, but he did nothing.

14. Petitioners contend that houses of some of the petitioners were

also acquired along with their agricultural lands under different

notifications issued under Section 11 of the Act and in respect of the

said acquisition of houses, notices for rehabilitation and resettlement

were separately issued in November, 2019 to such petitioners, but the

said notices are not related to the acquisition notification of

petitioners' agricultural lands.

15. They therefore sought punishment to all respondents for willful

disobedience of the order dt.12.10.2018 in I.A.No.1 of 2018 in

W.P.No.37623 of 2018 under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of

Courts Act, 1971.

Other events

16. It is a matter of record that the respondents filed on 12.12.2018,

I.A.No.2 of 2018 to vacate the order dt.12.10.2018 in I.A.No.1 of

2018 in W.P.No.37623 of 2018, but till date they have not got the said

application listed before any Bench of this Court though more than 2

years have elapsed since it's filing.

17. The Hon'ble Chief Justice Sri Justice Raghavendra Singh

Chauhan, on the request of the Additional Advocate General of the

State of Telangana, had taken an administrative decision in

November, 2019 not to list vacate stay applications in Writ Petitions

along with the Contempt Petitions filed by petitioners alleging non-

compliance of interim orders passed in Writ Petitions by me thus

depriving me of an opportunity to hear the vacate stay applications in

the Writ Petitions with the Contempt Case. The Registrar (General)

had informed me of the said administrative decision of the Hon'ble

Chief Justice. Therefore, there was no possibility for me to request for

listing of the said I.A.No.2 of 2018 before me so that the same can

also be considered by me along with the Contempt Case.

18. The respondents filed separate counter-affidavits enclosing

about 840 pages of material papers.

19. To avoid repetition, their contentions are referred to and

considered below.

Consideration by the Court of the stand of the respondents :

20. The 1st respondent contended that he was not serving in the

District of Rajanna Sircilla either on 22.10.2018, when the interim

order was communicated to the 3rd respondent or on 27.03.2019 when

the petitioners made representation to 3rd respondent.

Petitioners contend that 1st respondent was the District

Collector, Rajanna Sircilla District when petitioners made

representations on 11.10.2019 and 15.10.2019, but he did not do

anything and that 1st respondent cannot claim that because he was not

holding office on 22.10.2018 and 27.03.2019, he has no responsibility

to ensure obedience to the orders of this Court.

I agree with the said submission of the petitioners because

petitioner was admittedly the District Collector of the said District in

October,2019 when the agricultural lands of petitioners were

submerged (this is discussed below in detail) and it was his duty to

prevent it's violation since the Office of District Collector, Rajanna

Sircilla District was a party in the Writ Petition ( 5th respondent in the

WP) and to the said order dt.12.10.2018 and it binds him as well even

if he joined later in the said Post.

21. The 1st respondent then contended that he had perused the file

record in the Collectorate and he observed that no part of petitioners'

lands were handed over to any agency for irrigation work after

12.10.2018.

Petitioners contend that this is a false plea because petitioners'

lands are under submersion from October,2019.

Along with the additional counter of 1st respondent, certain

Annexures have been filed. At page no.225 of such Annexures is an

award in L.R.No.G6/3166/2017 dt.11.01.2019 passed by the 3rd

respondent for acquisition of structures and houses in Abadi and Patta

lands in Anantagiri Village and at page no.283 in the said Award, it is

specifically recorded 'the agricultural lands of the village have been

acquired leaving a balance of the land covered by the houses /

structures in the village, and the total land of the village has been

handed over to the Irrigation Department'. (emphasis supplied)

This clearly disproves the statement of the 1st respondent that

no part of the petitioners' land was handed over to any agency for

irrigation work, and that the said plea is a false plea contrary to

record. Even by 11.01.2019, the entire agricultural lands in the village

had already been handed over to the Irrigation Department by the said

department to the contractors engaged by it.

22. The 1st respondent contended that certain details of land

acquisition and Resettlement and Rehabilitation benefits were

disbursed to the petitioners and referred to them in para no.5 of the

counter-affidavit.

Petitioners pointed out that the agricultural lands in Anantagiri

Village were acquired in different stages by issuing different

notifications under Section 11(1) and declarations under Section 19(1)

of the Act. They also pointed out that notifications for acquisition of

houses of petitioners in Anantagiri Village were separately issued;

that notifications for agricultural lands and houses are distinct and

separate; and documents filed by respondents do not indicate about

such stage-wise acquisition or stage-wise provision of Resettlement

and Rehabilitation entitlements as required under Section 19 of the

Act; and the respondents cannot club the notifications for agricultural

lands and houses together.

Petitioners contend that the respondents are trying to mislead

this Court by showing awards for payment of compensation for

acquisition of agricultural lands and awards passed for Resettlement

and Rehabilitation for acquisition of houses and trying to pass them

off as awards for Resettlement and Rehabilitation for acquisition of

agricultural lands of the petitioners. I agree with the said contention.

To a specific question put by me to the Special Government

Pleader, Sri A. Sanjeev Kumar, attached to the Office of the

Additional Advocate-General to show to me a single award under

Section 31 of the Act r/w Schedule II of the Act towards Resettlement

and Rehabilitation for acquisition of agricultural lands of the

petitioners under the notifications mentioned by the petitioners above,

he was not able to point out to a single document in any of the

Annexures filed along with the counter-affidavits filed by the

respondents to show that such awards were passed and such

compensation was paid.

23. Moreover, a Resettlement and Rehabilitation award under

Section 31(1) of the Act is supposed to be passed along with the

compensation award under Section 30 of the Act as per Section 23(b)

of the Act. This legal position is also not disputed by the Special

Government Pleader. Admittedly, this provision was not complied

with.

24. Though the 1st respondent pleaded in para no.6 that attempts

were not made to dispossess the petitioners from their agricultural

lands or residential houses at any point of time, this is also a false plea

as petitioners' lands were dug away and submerged on account of

inundation as can be seen from photographs filed by the petitioners

and it is to be expected to happen once the entire village was handed

over to the Irrigation Department as admitted in page no.283 referred

to above by the 3rd respondent.

In fact, newspaper reports of Sakshi Newspaper and Telangana

Today dt.20.02.2020 indicate that there was a direction by the

Principal Secretary, Irrigation Department of State of Telangana to

complete all works pertaining to Kaleswaram Project on war-footing

in March, 2020 since the Government intended to release Godavari

water into the Anantagiri Reservoir, Ranganayaka Sagar and

Kondapochamma Sagar.

It is not even denied by the Special Government Pleader that

such water from river Godavari was released in all the three

Reservoirs by May, 2020, after the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown

commenced.

A Division Bench of this Court, to which I am a party, had

recorded this fact in a judgment reported in Merugu Narsaiah @

Narsimha Reddy vs. State of Telangana1 at para no.47(C).(d),

Pg.524 and also para no.47(E) at pg.525.

25. In para no.7 of the counter of the 1st respondent a plea is raised

by the 1st respondent that a petitioner cannot claim Rehabilitation and

Resettlement benefits two times - once for loss of agricultural land

and another for loss of house, and that Rehabilitation and

Resettlement benefits are payable only to Project Displaced Family.

As regards the first plea, it is not stated by 1st respondent which

provision disentitles the petitioners to claim Rehabilitation and

Resettlement benefits under Section 31 for loss of agricultural land, if

they are paid such entitlements for loss of houses. In law, there is no

such bar.

Act 30 of 2013 specifically provides that for every notification

issued under Section 11(1) of the Act for acquisition of immovable

property, a scheme for Rehabilitation and Resettlement has to be

prepared and then only declaration under Section 19(1) of the Act has

to be issued. Then a Resettlement and Rehabilitation Award under

Section 31 of the Act has to be passed along with the compensation

2020 (4) A.L.D. 510 (D.B.)

Award under Section 30; after so extending such benefits, then only

under Section 38 possession of the land can be taken. In my opinion,

the Act in fact makes it clear that each notification for acquisition of

land is a separate and distinct event of acquisition and for each such

event, the land loser is entitled to Rehabilitation and Resettlement

benefits.

As regards the other plea, in an order dt.02.05.2018 in

W.P.(PIL) No.191 of 2016, a Division Bench presided over by the

then Acting Chief Justice categorically held that a land owner who

loses land or other immovable property to acquisition process by the

State would fall within the definition of 'affected family' under

Section 3(c) (i) of the Act. So this plea of the 1st respondent also runs

contrary to this binding precedent.

26. The contents of para 8 and 9 of the counter affidavit of the 1st

respondent relate to acquisition of houses and homestead lands which

are subject matter of different notifications and the 1st respondent is

trying to mislead the Court by projecting as if Rehabilitation and

Resettlement Awards were passed in favour of the petitioners for

acquisition of their agricultural lands, which was not done.

27. The plea in para 10 of the counter of the 1st respondent that

petitioners' lands are not submerged is a false plea and has already

been dealt with above. The photographs filed by the petitioners show

that petitioners' lands are inundation and submergence because

construction works were allowed by the respondents. When the

respondents had declared that the works relating to Anantagiri

Reservoir are complete and water is going to be released from River

Godavari in first week of March, 2020, this plea of the 1st respondent

cannot be believed.

28. In the additional counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent he

had given details of certain notifications issued for acquisition of

residential houses in Anantagiri Village and Awards passed in

relation thereto for compensation and Rehabilitation and

Resettlement.

29. Again in page 5 of the said additional counter affidavit a false

plea is raised that Rehabilitation and Resettlement Awards in respect

of agricultural lands were also passed and amounts paid.

As pointed out above, the Special Government Pleader

appearing for the Additional Advocate General is unable to show any

document proving that Rehabilitation and Resettlement Awards under

Section 31 for the agricultural lands of the petitioners which were

acquired, were passed or that any payment in that regard was made to

any of the petitioners.

30. The contents of the counter affidavits of respondents 2 and 3

are identical with those of the counter affidavit of the 1st respondent.

31. The plea therein that no attempts were made to dispossess the

petitioners from their agricultural lands and residential houses is a

false plea. No Award under Section 31 of the Act is shown to have

been passed in respect of the agricultural lands of the petitioners

which have been acquired.

32. The interim order passed by this Court on 12.10.2018 in

I.A.No.1 of 2018 in W.P.No.37623 of 2018 restraining respondents

from taking possession of the petitioners' agricultural lands continues

to subsist and has not been vacated till date. The said direction would

continue to operate unless vacated even if Rehabilitation and

Resettlement Awards under Section 31A for agricultural lands of the

petitioners which are acquired, are passed.

33. I hold that petitioners were dispossessed from their lands in

October, 2019 itself and their lands were submerged as alleged in the

Contempt Case and all the respondents have thus willfully disobeyed

the order dt.12.10.2018 in I.A.No.1 of 2018 in W.P.No.37623 of

2018.

34. In this view of the matter, the Contempt Case is allowed; the

respondents 1 to 3 are sentenced to simple imprisonment for three (3)

months and fine of Rs.2,000/-. They shall also pay costs of

Rs.10,000/- to each of the petitioners within four (4) weeks.

35. The petitioners shall deposit subsistence allowance at Rs.200/-

per day for each of the respondents within six (6) weeks. The sentence

of imprisonment imposed on the respondents is suspended for six (6)

weeks.

36. An adverse entry shall be recorded in the service records of

respondents as regards their willful disobedience of the orders

dt.12.10.2018 passed by this Court in I.A.No.1 of 2018 in

W.P.No.37623 of 2018.

37. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any in this, shall

stand closed.

___________________________________ JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO

Date: 25.02.2021 Ndr