Mohd. Sirajuddin, R.R.Dist. 9 ... vs R.Shobha, I.F.S.,
2021 Latest Caselaw 2252 Tel

           THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.AMARNATH GOUD

                   CONTEMPT CASE No.1779 OF 2015

JUDGMENT:

1 Alleging willful disobedience to the orders dated 04.12.2009

passed in Writ Petition No.9526 of 2009, by the respondents, the

petitioners filed the present Contempt Case.

2 Succinctly, the case of the petitioners was that the

petitioners are owners of land admeasuring Ac.383-00 in

Sy.Nos.222/1 to 222/20 of Maheshwaram village and Mandal,

Ranga Reddy District. The forest officials initiated action under

A.P. Forest Act, 1967, to declare the subject property as Reserve

Forest. However, the Forest Settlement Officer, Hyderabad

addressed a letter dated 08.01.2008 to the District Collector,

Ranga Reddy District, pointing out that it was not feasible to

carryout the proceedings further and that the land be excluded

from the proposals of converting into a Reserve Forest. Since their

rights were in jeopardy, the petitioners filed the Writ Petition

No.9526 of 2009 seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the

inaction on the part of the respondents in taking any action on

letter dated 08.01.2008 issued by the sixth respondent as illegal

and consequently sought a direction to the respondents to take

appropriate action on the letter dated 08.01.2008 within two

months from the date of date of disposal of the Writ Petition or in

the alternative direct the respondents to handover possession of

the subject property to the petitioners and such other ancillary

reliefs.

3 After hearing both sides, the above Writ Petition was

disposed of with direction to the respondents in the Writ Petition to

finalize the issue relating to the acquisition of the land referred to

above within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a

copy of the order. The grievance of the petitioners is that though

they were meeting the respondent authorities, they were advised to

wait for some time in view of the bifurcation of the State. However,

even after division of the State, the respondent authorities have not

taken any decision in the matter. In anticipation of the completion

of the formalities the possession was already taken over, but no

steps under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and

Transparency in Land, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013

or Forest Act have been taken yet. In addition to that the

respondent authorities are also required to pay for the occupation

of the land as the petitioners were deprived of the same. Hence the

petitioners got issued a legal notice to the respondent authorities

on 02.7.2015, but no reply was given nor any action was taken.

Hence the present Contempt Case.

4 The erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, by

order dated 04.12.2009 disposed of the above Writ Petition

directing the respondent authorities to finalize the issue relating to

the acquisition of the subject land for the purpose of conversion

thereto into Reserve Forest, within a period of six months from the

date of receipt of a copy of the order.

5 The Divisional Forest Officer, Hyderabad, the third

respondent in the Contempt Case filed counter stating that

according to the Sethwar 1932 of the village, the land comprising

of Sy.No.222 of an extent of 383-00 guntas is a Kancha as such

the land was in the custody of the Forest Department since then. It

is further submitted that the petitioners' predecessors have by

fraudulent means got the land classification changed as patta

which was given rise to the litigation, but the fact remains that the

land has been in continuous and uninterrupted possession and

management of the Forest Department for about 80 years and the

same is reflected in the village record. It is further submitted that

the Forest Settlement Officer is the statutory authority to decide

the claims over the lands which are included in a proposed Reserve

Forest Block and the claim petition of the petitioners was pending

before the Forest Settlement Officer, who after holding enquiry and

after due verification of the Forest & Revenue records, found that

the said lands are declared by the petitioners under the Land

Ceiling Act. Against the said order, an appeal was filed before the

Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal and that the Tribunal in its order

dated 06.4.1978 directed to delete an extent of Ac.340-78 Gts in

Sy.No.222, while computing the holding of the petitioners. The

claim of the petitioners was rejected by the Forest Settlement

Officer vide proceedings dated 23.4.2010 and when that order was

sought to be served on the petitioners, they were not available in

the village. It is further submitted that though the names of the

petitioners was recorded in Khasra Pahani and entries in the

revenue records are contrary to evidence on record and are not

conclusive. The sixth respondent, taking all this into

consideration, passed the above order dated 23.4.2010 in

compliance of the orders passed by the Hon'ble Court in the above

Writ Petition. It is further submitted that inasmuch as the order of

the Hon'ble Court was complied with by disposing off the claim of

the petitioners, the Contempt Case may be closed.

6 Heard Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for

the petitioners and the learned Advocate General appearing for the

Contemnors.

7 The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

Divisional Forest Officer, Hyderabad vide letter dated 22.6.1967

submitted notification proposals under Section 4 of the A.P. Forest

Act, 1967 to the Conservator of Forests over an area of 383 acres

of patta land in Sy.No.222/1 to 222/10 of Maisaram village. The

Conservator of Forests, vide letter dated 05.8.1968 submitted

proposals to the Chief Conservator of Forests, the second

respondent, for approval to which the second respondent accorded

permission to take action under Section 4 of the Forest Act.

Thereafter the fourth respondent, vide letter dated 02.7.1973

addressed the District Collector clarifying that the proposals were

already referred to the Conservator of Forests and Chief

Conservator of Forests for approval for reserving the forest block.

Subsequently the fourth respondent submitted reservation

proposals supplying omissions for his approval. The MRO,

Maheswaram, vide letter dated 07.9.1989 submitted report to the

Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad East, with a copy marked to

the fourth respondent setting out that the land in Sy.Nos.222/1 to

222/20 comprising of 348.14 guntas was under occupation of

Forest Department for the last 20 years. The MRO also pointed

out non-filing of declaration under the Land Reforms Act.

Thereupon, the fourth respondent vide letter dated 26.9.1994

resubmitted the reservation proposals in respect of 383 acres

which were approved by the District Collector on 26.9.1994 and

forwarded to the Chief Conservator of Forests on 03.10.1995.

Thereafter on submission by the Chief Conservator of Forests, the

Government vide G.O.Ms.No.1 dated 04.1.1999 approved the

notification proposals and the same was published in the A.P.

Gazette on 28.01.1999 and in R.R. District Gazette on 23.7.1999.

However, the Forest Settlement Officer also in the notification

dated 28.9.1999 published in Telugu as Patta land and in English

as Poramboke. On 29.7.2000, the Forest Settlement Officer

submitted preliminary valuation certificate for payment of

compensation. On 19.10.2000, the District Collector, Ranga

Reddy District sought for a clarification as to whether the lands are

poramboke or patta lands. A detailed report after enquiry was sent

to the District Collector by the MRO clarifying that the lands are

patta lands under his letter dated 23.11.2000.

8 The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted

that the fourth respondent addressed a letter dated 28.11.2000 to

the District Collector setting out the above facts and requested to

allot 383 acres of land under land bank of R.R. District to avoid

huge compensation to the pattadars and also to ensure exchange.

He further submitted that on 08.01.2008, the Forest Settlement

Officer addressed to the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District

and concluded that the lands are patta lands but not forest lands

and to exclude the same from the Forest Act as they do not attract

the provisions of the Forest Act, recommended exclusion of the

said lands form the proposals of forest block and requested the

authorities to look into the matter immediately. But no decision

was taken on that.

9 The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted

that as could be seen from the counter affidavit filed by the

respondents in the Writ Petition itself that the respondents

admitted the proposals for acquiring the land under Land

Acquisition Act were also initiated and the compensation to be paid

to the petitioners worked out to Rs.1,14,84,687/-. This fact itself

shows that the respondents have flouted the orders of this Hon'ble

Court in the Writ Petition No.9526 of 2009 and prayed to punish

the respondents under the Contempt of Courts Act. The learned

counsel for the petitioners relied on the following judgment:

a) Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd Vs. Chunilal Nanda1,

b) J.S. Parihar vs. Ganpat Duggar2,

c) Lalith Mathur Vs. L.Maheshwara Rao3,

d) Chhotu Ram Vs. Urvashi Gulati4,

e) Dr. Subhendu Sen Vs. Pradeep Kumar5,

f) Rama Narang Vs. Ramesh Narang6,

g) Gadda Balaiah Vs. Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District7

10 In reply, the learned Advocate General appearing for the

respondents submitted that the letter dated 08.01.2008 addressed

1 (2006) 5 SCC 399 2 (1996) 6 SCC 291 3 (2000) 10 SCC 285 4 (2001) 7 SCC 530 5 (2011) SCC OnLine AP 132 6 (2021) SCC OnLine SC 29 7 2013 SCC OnLine AP 762

by the Forest Settlement Officer is without examining the factual

aspects in relation to the subject land as to whether the property

was allegedly owned by the petitioners and whether it was subject

to any ceiling laws. The learned Advocate General further

submitted that in view of the orders dated 07.02.2009 passed in

W.P.Nos.21771 of 2008 and 1980 of 2008, the letter dated

08.01.2008 of the Forest Settlement Officer is not determination of

the so-called rights of the petitioners. He further submitted that

upon perusal of the entire records, the extent of land Ac.348-78

cents in Sy.No.222/1 to 222/20 of Maheswaram village have been

deleted from the holding of pattadars and the District Forest

Officer vide letter dated 18.8.1999 has also confirmed that the

subject land is surplus land in the possession of the Forest

Department. Therefore, it is found that the payment of cash

compensation or providing land to land does not arise. He further

submitted that the Forest Settlement Officer by order dated

03.6.2010 further passed orders rejecting the claim of the

claimants holding that the subject land is declared as surplus land

under the Ceiling Act, however, the orders dated 23.4.2010 and

03.6.2010 could not be served on the claimants physically as the

addressee was not found in their house.

11 The learned Advocate General further submitted that the

petitioners having filed their declarations as to their land holding

adjudicated by the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal have

suppressed the fact before this Court. He further submitted that

the factum of ownership of land was not dealt in the Writ Petition.

He further submitted that the subject land under sethwar of the

year 1932 was recorded in the revenue records as poramboke

kancha. However, in the Khasra pahani the land was recorded as

ptta land. But no corresponding record as to how the poramboke

kancha is converted into a patta land is available. He further

submitted that the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal has already

excluded the subject land from the holding of the so-called

pattadar namely Md. Sirajuddin. Therefore, there is no

requirement of initiating proceedings so as to determine the right

or other entitlement of any person.

12 The learned Advocate General further submitted that the

petitioners cannot rely upon the internal correspondence or the

notings and thereby setup any right. He further submitted that

the contempt proceedings initiated after five years, ex facie, barred

by limitation and there is no concept of continuation of cause of

action in the given case so as to invoke the contempt jurisdiction

by the petitioners. In support of his contentions, the learned

Advocate General relied on the following judgments:

i) Shanti Sports Club Vs. Union of India8,

ii) Bachhitar Singh Vs. State of Punjab9

13 The prayer in this Contempt Case reads as follows:

"For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, the petitioners herein pray that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to punish the respondents for willful and deliberate disobedience of the orders dt.04.12.2009 passed by this Hon'ble Court in WP No.9526 of 2009 and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice and circumstances of the case.

14 Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act read as

under:

8 (2009) 15 SCC 705 9 AIR 1963 SC 395

10. Power of High Court to punish contempts of subordinate courts.

Every High Court shall have and exercise the same jurisdiction, powers and authority, in accordance with the same procedure and practice, in respect of contempt of courts subordinate to it as it has and exercises in respect of contempts of itself:

11. Power of High Court to try offences committed or offenders found outside jurisdiction.

A High Court shall have jurisdiction to inquire into or try a contempt of itself or of any court subordinate to it, whether the contempt is alleged to have been committed within or outside the local limits the local limits of its jurisdiction, and whether the person alleged to be guilty of contempt is within or outside such limits.

12. Punishment for contempt of Court.

(1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act or in any other law, a contempt of court may be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both:

15 In the light of the above legal position and the prayer sought

by the petitioners, let me discuss whether there is any contempt

committed by the respondent authorities.

16 Admittedly, W.P.No.30573 of 1997 field by the petitioners

was disposed of on 07.8.1998 with a direction to initiate land

acquisition proceedings since there was an admission on the part

of the respondent authorities - Forest department that it is in

possession of the subject lands. In pursuance of the orders

passed in the above Writ Petition, a notification under Section 4 of

the A.P. Forest Act, 1967, vide G.O.Ms.No.1 dated 04.01.1999, was

issued. The same was also published in the gazette on 28.01.1999

followed by a Notification dated 29.9.1999.

17 W.P.Nos.21771 of 2008 and 1980 of 2009 filed third parties,

wherein the petitioners herein are respondents, were dismissed on

27.02.2009 directing the Government to initiate acquisition

proceedings. As per the observations made in the common order

passed in these two Writ Petitions, the subject matter of the entire

notification was only a patta land. Thereafter the Writ Petition

No.9526 of 2009 filed by the petitioners was also disposed of

directing the Government to finalize the issue relating to the

acquisition of the land in Sy.No.222/1 to 222/20 of Maheshwaram

Village, Ranga Reddy District for the purpose of conversion into

Reserve Forest. Therefore, in all the above Writ Petitions the

Government was directed to pass orders and the same became

final. At no point of time the orders of the learned single Judge

were challenged by way of writ appeal.

18 The grievance of the petitioners is that even after the

disposal of the Writ Petition No. 9526 of 2009 though they were

meeting the respondent authorities, they were advised to wait for

some time in view of the bifurcation of the State. However, even

after division of the State, the respondent authorities have not

taken any decision in the matter nor did they pay for the

occupation of the land as the petitioners were deprived of the

same.

19 On 22.7.2021 Smt. A. Santha Kumari, Special Chief

Secretary and Mr. Janaki Ram, D.F.O. Ranga Reddy were present

and they adopted the affidavit field by their predecessors and that

they stick on to the contentions of the learned Advocate General,

who represented before this Court in the present Contempt Case.

In nutshell they submitted that they have not violated the Court

orders and prayed to dismiss the Contempt Case.

20 It is pertinent to note that even as per the counter affidavit

filed by the respondents in the Writ Petition, the respondents

admitted the proposals for acquiring the land under Land

Acquisition Act were also initiated and the compensation to be paid

to the petitioners worked out to Rs.1,14,84,687/-.

21 It is also to be noted that when the Forest Settlement Officer,

Hyderabad addressed a letter on 08.01.2008 to the District

Collector, Ranga Reddy district pointing out that it was not feasible

to carry out the proposal into a Reserve Forest, the respondent

authorities have not taken any steps in that regard. Hence the

petitioners were constrained to file Writ Petition No.9526 of 2009

seeking a direction to the respondent authorities either to take

action on the letter dated 08.01.2009 of the Forest Settlement

Officer or to direct the respondent authorities to handover the

possession of the land to the petitioners. When that Writ Petition

was disposed of positively, directing the Government to finalize the

issue relating to acquisition of the land referred to above within a

period of six months, no favourable action has been initiated

thereon. Further, the respondent authorities have also not paid

any amounts to the petitioners for the occupation of the land for all

the years.

22 In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, this

Court is of the considered opinion that the respondent authorities

have not strictly implemented the order passed by this Court in

Writ Petition No.9526 of 2009 dated 04.12.2009.

23 In that view of the matter, the respondents are liable for

punishment under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts

Act. Accordingly, they are sentenced to simple imprisonment for a

period of six months and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each.

24    Accordingly the Contempt Case is allowed.


                                         __________________________
                                          T. AMARNATH GOUD, J.
Date: 30-7-2021
Kvsn