Prashanth Patel vs Mr.Dasrath Singh And 3 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 888 Tel

         THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY

                CONTEMPT CASE No.1006 of 2021
ORDER:

Seeking to punish the respondents herein for the willful

disobedience of the order dated 27.07.2021 passed by this

Court in W.P. No.17124 of 2021, the present Contempt Case is

filed.

The directions of this Court vide order dated 27.07.2021

passed in W.P. No.17124 of 2021 are as follows:

" ..... the writ petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to furnish documentary evidence, if any, in support of his explanation, and the respondents are directed to consider the explanation submitted by the petitioner along with the material produced by him, and pass orders in accordance with law, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till then, the respondents shall not take any coercive steps against the petitioner."

The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that even though

this Court has passed the order on 27.07.2021 granting liberty

to the petitioner to file necessary documents in support of his

explanation and further directed the authorities to pass orders

within two weeks, the petitioner's contention is that without

waiting for the said two weeks, the respondent authorities have

C.C.No.1006/2021 AAR,J

demolished the house of the petitioner on 29.07.2021.

Therefore, alleging willful disobedience of the above said order

by the respondent authorities, the present Contempt Case is

filed.

The stand of the respondents, as per their respective

counter affidavits, is that the demolitions were carried after

considering the explanation submitted and the documents

enclosed therewith. That the petitioner has not submitted any

documents as directed by this Court vide order, dated

27.07.2021, therefore, the authorities have taken action and

there is a complete compliance of the direction passed by this

Court in W.P.No.17124 of 2021. Further more, on 28.07.2021

the Tahsildar had given the report stating that the patta

certificate relied by the petitioner is a bogus and fabricated one

and that it is not a genuine patta issued by the revenue

authorities. It is also stated that along with the subject house,

nearly twenty other illegal structures were identified in the

'goutan land', which is clarified as government land and all the

illegal structures were demolished. Therefore, it is submitted

that there is no willful or deliberate disobedience of the orders

passed by this Court by the answering respondents. Hence, it is

prayed to close the Contempt Case.

C.C.No.1006/2021 AAR,J

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned

Government Pleader for respondent No.2, Sri T. Surya Satish,

the learned counsel for respondent No.3, and Sri M.Ram Gopal

Rao, the learned counsel for respondent No.4.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently

argued that the official respondents, without waiting for the

completion of the time period or two weeks granted by this

Court, have in a hasty manner demolished the house of the

petitioner on 29.07.2021. That the order passed by the Junior

Panchayat Secretary on 28.07.2021 does not refer to the order

passed by this Court on 27.07.2021. That the petitioner

has requested time for submitting the required documents but

without waiting for the same, the house of the petitioner was

demolished. Learned counsel has stated that contradictory

stands have been taken by respondents and the demolition of

house of the petitioner on 29.07.2021 is nothing but willful and

deliberate violation of the orders passed by this Court on

27.07.2021. That the respondents do not have any respect

either for this Court or the orders passed by this Court and

therefore, the learned counsel seeks indulgence of this Court to

punish the respondents under the provisions of the Contempt of

Courts Act.

C.C.No.1006/2021 AAR,J

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

respective respondents have vehemently argued that as per the

directions of this Court, the petitioner has not filed any

documentary evidence to evidence his title over the subject

lands. That admittedly the land is 'Goutan land' which is

nothing but government property and the petitioner is only an

encroacher who has occupied the land illegally and constructed

the building without any building permission unauthorizedly.

That even the patta certificate relied by the petitioner is a bogus

and fabricated one as evidenced by the report of the Mandal

Revenue Officer dated 27.07.2021. Therefore, the action of the

respondents in demolishing the house of the petitioner cannot

be faulted with. That the authorities have followed the

procedure contemplated under the Act by putting the petitioner

on notice, calling for an explanation and then passing order.

A perusal of the documents filed by the petitioner shows

that even though the petitioner has approached this Court on

24.07.2021 by filing W.P. No.17124 of 2021, and this Court

passed the order on 27.07.2021 directing the petitioner to

submit additional documents, if any, in support of his

explanation, which was already submitted to the authorities.

The petitioner, when queried by this Court as to whether he has

C.C.No.1006/2021 AAR,J

filed any document/s to support his explanation, as directed by

this Court on 27.07.2021, has stated that on an earlier occasion

i.e. on 20.07.2021, he has filed an application seeking some

more time to procure the documents and the said documents

could not be procured, therefore he could not file the same.

From a perusal of the material on record, it is clear that

the petitioner was put on notice by the authorities for which he

has submitted his explanation and thereafter on an

apprehension that the official respondents may take action

without passing any orders, he has approached this Court.

Even though this Court vide order dated 27.07.2021 has

directed the petitioner to submit documentary evidence in

support of his explanation, admittedly no additional

documentary evidence has been submitted. Thereafter, the

authorities have passed the order and taken steps to remove the

encroachment on 29.07.2021.

Before proceeding further in this case, it is pertinent to

extract the relevant portion of the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme

Court in KAPILDEO PRASAD SAH v. STATE OF BIHAR1,

which reads as under:

(1999) 7 SCC 569

C.C.No.1006/2021 AAR,J

"9. For holding the respondents to have committed contempt, civil contempt at that, it has to be shown that there has been willful disobedience of the judgment or order of the Court. Power to punish for contempt is to be resorted to when there is clear violation of the Court's order. Since notice of contempt and punishment for contempt is of far-

reaching consequence, these powers should be invoked only when a clear case of willful disobedience of the Court's order has been made out. Whether disobedience is willful in a particular case depends on the facts and circumstances of that case. Judicial orders are to be properly understood and complied with. Even negligence and carelessness can amount to disobedience particularly when the attention of the person is drawn to the Court's orders and its implications. Disobedience of the Court's order strikes at the very root of the rule of law on which out system of governance is based. Power to punish for contempt is necessary for the maintenance of effective legal system. It is exercised to prevent perversion of the course of justice.

11. No person can defy the Court's order.

Wilful would exclude casual, accidental, bona fide or unintentional acts or genuine inability to comply with the terms of the order. A petitioner who complains breach of the Court's order must allege deliberate or contumacious disobedience of the Court's order.

C.C.No.1006/2021 AAR,J

In view of the settled legal position, as enumerated above,

the only question before this Court is 'whether the officials have

demolished the subject premises in a post-haste manner as

contended by the petitioner and violated the order of this Court,

thereby committed any Contempt of Court or not''?

Admittedly, it is the case of the petitioner that he has not

submitted any further documents in support of his explanation,

the authorities cannot be blamed for passing the order and

taking action on 29.07.2021. The order of this Court passed on

27.07.2021 does not direct the authorities to wait for two weeks

before passing any order or taking any action, the order is very

clear that the petitioner has to submit the documents to the

authorities and the orders have to be passed within two weeks,

but not after two weeks. Moreover, the petitioner has stated

that he has made a representation on 20.07.2021 seeking ten

days time for procuring the necessary documents in support of

his case but admittedly no documents were filed by the

petitioner till 28.07.2021. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court and other High Courts, the scope of contempt proceedings

is very limited wherein this Court has to see whether there is

any willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court or

not. In the case on hand, the authorities cannot be blamed for

C.C.No.1006/2021 AAR,J

passing orders on 28.07.2021 and taking action on 29.07.2021

for removing the illegal encroachments of government lands and

unauthorized building constructions thereon.

In view of the above, I do not see any willful or deliberate

disobedience of the order dated 27.07.2021 passed by this

Court in W.P.No.17124 of 2021.

The Contempt Case is, accordingly, closed. However, if

the petitioner has any grievance against the orders passed on

28.07.2021, he is free to file an appropriate appeal or writ

petition challenging the order dated 28.07.2021.

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any,

shall stand closed.

_________________________ A. ABHISHEK REDDY, J 24.02.2022 sur