Sri.M.Raghunandan Rao, Ias vs Sri Gurram Ram Reddy
2021 Latest Caselaw 2156 Tel

Item No.28




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

                           L.P.A.No.2 OF 2020

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


1.    The appellant (respondent No.2 in C.C.No.1052 of 2018) is

aggrieved by an order dated 23.12.2019 passed by the learned Single

Judge disposing of the contempt petition subject to his personally paying

costs of Rs.5,000/- to the respondents No.1 and 2/writ petitioners within

four weeks.

2. Despite service, none is present on behalf of the respondents.

3. Mr. A.Sanjeev Kumar, learned Special Government Pleader states

that W.P.No.20925 of 2008 filed by the petitioners in the contempt

petition was allowed on 18.03.2009 whereby, proceedings in respect of

the subject land under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and

Regulation) Act, 1976, were quashed. Raising a grievance that despite

the above, the respondents in the contempt petition had included the

subject land in the list of prohibited properties issued under Section 22-A

of the Registration Act, another writ petition was filed by the petitioners

registered as W.P.No.39035 of 2017. The said writ petition was allowed

on 27.11.2017, with an observation that the respondent/authorities could

not have included the property in the prohibitory list. Simultaneously,

the Registry was directed to issue a notice to show cause to the

respondents as to why contempt proceedings should not be initiated

against them. In the counter affidavit, it was explained that immediately

after receiving the order dated 27.11.2017, steps were taken to delete the

subject land from the prohibitory list. However, noting that no

explanation was offered for including the subject property in the

prohibitory list in the first place, despite an earlier order passed on

18.03.2009, the contempt petition was closed on accepting the

unconditional apology offered by the respondent No.2 with a condition

that he would personally pay costs of Rs.5,000/-.

4. Learned Special Government Pleader states that the default, if any,

in non-compliance of the order passed on 18.03.2009 in the first writ

petition was not on the part of the appellant, who was posted as the

District Collector, Ranga Reddy District only in the year 2016 and

immediately after the order dated 27.11.2017 was brought to his notice,

steps were taken to delete the subject property from the prohibitory list.

5. The explanation offered by learned counsel for the appellant is

reasonable. Admittedly, the appellant had complied with the order dated

27.11.2017 within a reasonable time and had deleted the subject land

from the prohibitory list. He cannot be mulcted with costs for the

inaction on the part of his predecessor on the seat when the order dated

18.03.2009 was passed. Accordingly, the costs of Rs.5,000/- imposed

on the appellant are set aside.

6. The present appeal is allowed and disposed of along with the

pending applications, if any.

_________________ HIMA KOHLI, CJ

______________________ B.VIJAYSEN REDDY, J 20.07.2021 Lrkm/Pln