Kammari Veeresham vs Sri Surender
2021 Latest Caselaw 125 Tel

       THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY

                     CONTEMPT CASE No.977 of 2020

ORDER:

This Contempt Case is filed alleging willful disobedience of

the order dated 10.08.2020 passed by this Court in W.P.No.12068

of 2020.

The petitioner herein filed the afore-stated writ petition

aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents in

conducting survey of the subject land and demarcating the land

in spite of submitting an application dated 10.05.2013. This

Court, by order dated 10.08.2020, has passed the following order:

"In view of the above, the present writ petition is allowed in terms of the common order, dated 28.04.2016, passed in W.P.No.4811 of 2011 and batch. The petitioner is directed to make F-line application through online before respondent No.4-the Tahasildar seeking sub-division of the survey number and pay the requisite fee through mee-seva, within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if not already made. On such application being made, the respondents are directed to complete the survey/sub-division/demarcation, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is needless to mention that the petitioner, as well as the neighbouring landowners will be put on notice before undertaking any survey, and take into account the work memos, if any, filed by any of the parties."

Alleging that the said order has not been implemented by the

respondent authorities, the present Contempt Case is filed.

Respondent No.1 has filed a counter affidavit stating that

pursuant to the order, dated 10.08.2020, passed by this Court, the

Mandal Surveyor has issued notices to all the concerned parties on

01.10.2020 duly informing the petitioner and the neighbouring

pattadars, that the survey will be conducted on 09.10.2020. The

adjacent pattadars namely T.R.Venkatesh and Rajeshwar Reddy

have filed their objection petitions for conducting survey stating

that they are in possession of the subject land. As the adjacent

pattadars have not allowed the authorities to conduct survey and

both the parties are claiming possession over the land in survey

No.561, the Mandal Surveyor could not conduct the survey as

directed by this Court on 10.08.2020. In fact, one of the

neighbouring land owners viz., T.R.Venkatesh has also filed a

criminal complaint vide F.I.R. No.287/2020 in P.S. Shamirpet

alleging that the petitioner herein has damaged the kaddi stones

and fencing of property which is in his possession. Thus, there is

a serious dispute of possession in respect of the subject land. In

those circumstances, the survey could not be conducted by the

Mandal Surveyor and absolutely there is no willful disobedience on

the part of the official respondents. Therefore, prayed to dismiss

the Contempt Case.

Heard Sri Rapolu Bhaskar, the learned counsel for the

petitioner, and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue for the

respondents.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the

petitioner has submitted a letter dated 09.09.2020 along with copy

of the order dated 10.08.2020 to the respondents with a request to

implement the order of this Court. Despite the same, the

respondents failed to obey the order of by this Court, instead, the

respondent No.1 issued a memo vide Lr.No.B/733/2020, dated

06.11.2020, disputing the possession of the petitioner over the

subject land, ignoring the documents filed by the petitioner in

support of his claim for possession. Hence, the respondents are

liable for punishment for disobeying the order, dated 10.08.2020,

passed by this Court.

Per contra, the learned Government Pleader has contended

that there is a serious dispute and counter claims with regard to

possession over the subject land. Due to the objections taken by

the person in possession of the subject lands, the Mandal Surveyor

could not conduct survey and that there is no willful disobedience

on the part of the respondents herein in implementing the order

dated 10.08.2020 passed by this Court. That the official

respondents have followed the procedure contemplated under the

provisions of the Telangana Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923, and

the circulars issued from time to time; having found that the

petitioner is not in possession of the subject lands, the authorities

have issued the memo stating that the survey cannot be

conducted. There are no merits in the Contempt Case and the

same is liable to be dismissed.

Perused the record.

The only question involved in this contempt case is whether

the contemnors have deliberately and willfully disobeyed the order

of this Court passed in W.P.No.12068 of 2020, dated 10.08.2020,

or not?

This Court vide order, dated 10.08.2020, passed in

W.P.No.12068 of 2020, has directed the respondents to conduct

the survey and demarcate the land of the petitioner by sub-

dividing the same on the application made by him. As per the

averments made in the petition and the counter, it is not disputed

that the official respondents failed to take any steps to conduct the

survey and demarcate the lands of the petitioner by sub-dividing

the same. The petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that the

respondents have issued the memo, dated 06.11.2020, vide

Lr.No.B/733/2020, stating that the persons in actual possession

are disputing the possession of the petitioner over the subject

lands and have opposed the survey itself.

A reading of the report sent by the Mandal Surveyor to the

Tahsildar, Muduchinthalapally Mandal, reveals that pursuant to

the order of this Court, the official respondents have issued notices

to all the concerned persons for survey and sub-division of the

subject lands on 01.10.2020 and also the neighbouring land

owners and that the survey will be conducted on 09.10.2020.

That, when the Mandal Surveyor went to the subject lands on

09.10.2020 to conduct the survey and demarcate the lands, the

neighbouring land owners namely T.R.Venkatesh and Rajeshwar

Reddy have objected for the survey on the ground that the

petitioner is not in physical possession of the land and did not

allow the survey to be conducted. Based on the report of the

Mandal Surveyor, the Tahsildar has issued the Memo, dated

06.11.2020, stating that the petitioner is not in physical

possession. The said memo is issued basing on the Circular

issued by the Commissioner, Survey & Land Records, the

requirement of the petitioner for sub-division of Sy.No.561 of

Koltur village cannot be considered. Even though the learned

Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the issuance

of the memo by the respondents amounts to deliberate and willful

disobedience of the order of this Court and that the petitioner is in

physical possession of the lands as evidenced by the Pattedar Pass

Book and Title Deed and other records, the fact remains that the

request of the petitioner for sub-division of survey number stood

rejected by a speaking order passed by the authority. If the

petitioner is aggrieved by the said memo, he is free to challenge the

same and seek redressal of his grievance if he is so advised.

The Law on Contempt has been well established by catena of

judgments of this Court as well as the Apex Court. Unless and

until the Court comes to a conclusion that the respondents have

deliberately and willfully violated the order passed by this Court,

the question of punishing the respondents does not arise. In this

particular case, the official respondents have taken all steps to

implement the order of this Court passed in W.P.No.12068 of

2020, dated 10.08.2020, but due to the objections taken by the

adjacent land owners, the survey could not be completed and the

request of the petitioner was rejected. If the petitioner is aggrieved

by the memo, dated 06.11.2020, rejecting his application for

demarcation of Sy.No.561, he is at liberty to assail the correctness

of the same either by way of an appeal or writ petition, but this

Court in exercise of its contempt jurisdiction cannot go into the

correctness or otherwise of the memo, dated 06.11.2020. The

jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act can be invoked only

if there is a willful or deliberate disobedience of the order passed.

In the absence of the same, the contempt has to fail. The official

respondents have taken all necessary steps to implement the order

of this Court, but for the reasons stated above, the same could not

be completed. The official respondents have not done anything

that would amount to willful or deliberate disobedience of the order

of this Court.

In view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances, the

Contempt Case is closed. This order does not preclude the

petitioner from challenging the memo, dated 06.11.2020 vide

Lr.No.B/733/2020, before the appropriate forum, if he is so

advised.

Miscellaneous petitions pending in this writ petition, if any,

shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

________________________ A.ABHISHEK REDDY, J

Date :

sur/va