Dasari Yadagiri vs Sri.Raghava Rao
2023 Latest Caselaw 1883 Tel

             HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

                CONTEMPT CASE No.1266 OF 2022
JUDGMENT:

Heard Mr. E. Sreenivasa Rao, learned counsel for the

petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Home appearing on

behalf of the respondents.

2. This Contempt Case is filed alleging willful disobedience

and deliberate violation of interim order dated 05.07.2021 in W.P.

No.14622 of 2021.

3. The petitioners herein have filed a writ petition vide W.P.

No.14622 of 2021 against the respondents therein to declare the action

of official respondents in interfering with agricultural operations,

peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners over the

agricultural land, admeasuring Acs.2-12 gts., in Suvey No.902 of

Eduluru Village, Katangur Mandal, Nalgonda District, (which is

hereinafter referred to as 'subject land') under the guise of order dated

04.11.2020 passed in W.P. No.19048 of 2020 by wrongly assuming it

to be as police protection order in favour of respondent Nos.4 and 5

therein, as illegal.

KL,J C.C. No.1266 of 2022

4. On 05.07.2021, this Court passed the following order:

"Notice to respondent Nos.4 and 5. Personal notice is permitted.

List on 20.07.2021.

Vide judgment, dated 04.11.2020 in W.P.No.19048 of 2020 filed by respondent No.4, this Court granted liberty to respondent No.4 to make a specific request to the Station House Officer, Kattangur Police Station, Nalgonda District, requesting to provide police aid in compliance of the decree granted by the appellate Court in A.S.No.57 of 2010 without any delay. If respondent No.4 complains of threat to his life, he may lodge complaint with the police, if not already filed and police are directed to look into the said allegation as and when made.

A perusal of the record would reveal that A.S.No.57 of 2010 was allowed, vide judgment, dated 11.09.2012 itself. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment, S.A.No.56 of 2013 was filed and this Court vide order, dated 01.02.2013 in S.A.M.P.No.106 of 2013 in S.A.No.56 of 2013 granted interim suspension of the said order. According to Sri L. Prabhakar Reddy, the said order is subsisting as on today.

A perusal of the order, dated 04.11.2020 in W.P.No.19048 of 2020 would reveal that the said facts were not brought to the notice of this Court by respondent No.4. The said order was passed on

KL,J C.C. No.1266 of 2022

the assumption that there is an order in A.S.No.57 of 2010 and the said first appeal was pending, which is factually incorrect. Prima facie, it appears that the said order, dated 04.11.2020 in W.P.No.19048 of 2020 was obtained by respondent No.4 by mis-representation and suppression of facts.

Sri L.Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, would submit that respondent No.3 is interfering with the agricultural operations of the petitioners herein.

In view of the same, matter requires examination.

Therefore, respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed not to interfere with the agricultural operations being carried out by the petitioners in their land admeasuring Ac.2.12 gts. in Survey No.902 of Eduluru Village, Kattangur Mandal, Nalgonda District."

5. There are disputes between the petitioners and Mr.

Nagulapati Ramulu and his wife Smt. Nagulapati Nagamani with

regard to the subject land. Mr. Nagulapati Ramulu (respondent No.4

in W.P. No.14622 of 2021) filed a suit vide O.S. No.89 of 2007

against the father of the petitioner and one Mr. Dagulapati Bixam,

seeking perpetual injunction and the same dismissed vide judgment

dated 28.07.2010 by learned Junior Civil Judge at Nakerkal. Feeling

KL,J C.C. No.1266 of 2022

aggrieved by the same, Mr. Nagulapati Ramulu preferred an appeal

vide A.S. No.57 of 2010, and the same was allowed vide judgment

dated 11.09.2012. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment, the father

of the petitioner and another filed second appeal vide S.A. No.56 of

2013, wherein the petitioners were impleaded on the demise of his

father, and the same was allowed by this Court vide judgment dated

22.04.2022.

6. It is relevant to note that vide order dated 01.02.2013 in

SAMP No.106 of 2013 in SA No.56 of 2013, this Court granted

interim suspension of the judgment dated 11.09.2012 in A.S. No.57 of

2010 and the same was extended till disposal of the second appeal.

Suppressing the said fact, Mr. Nagulapati Ramulu filed a writ petition

vide W.P. No.19048 of 2020 seeking police aid, and this Court vide

order dated 04.11.2020 disposed of the said writ petition granting

liberty to him to make a specific request to the Station House Officer,

Kattangur Police Station, Nalgonda District, requesting him to provide

police aid in compliance with the judgment and decree granted by the

appellate Court in A.S. No.57 of 2010 without any delay. This Court

also further observed that if Mr. Nagulapati Ramulu complains of

threat to his life he may lodge complaint with the police, if not already

KL,J C.C. No.1266 of 2022

filed and police were directed to look into said allegation as and when

made.

7. Thus, perusal of the order dated 04.11.2020 in W.P.

No.19048 of 2020 would reveal that the said Mr. Nagulapati Ramulu

did not bring to the notice of this Court with regard to the interim

order dated 01.02.2013 passed by this Court in SAMP No.106 of 2013

in SA No.56 of 2013 suspending the judgment dated 11.09.2012

passed by appellate Court in A.S. No.57 of 2010. The order dated

04.11.2020 passed by this Court in W.P. No.19048 of 2020 was based

on the assumption that there was judgment and decree in A.S. No.57

of 2010 which is factually incorrect. Mr. Nagulapati Ramulu obtained

the said order dated 04.11.2020 in W.P. No.19048 of 2020 by

misrepresentation and suppression of facts. Considering the said

aspects, this Court vide order dated 05.07.2021 in W.P. No.14622 of

2021 directed the respondents herein not to interfere with the

agricultural operations being carried out by the petitioners in the

subject land.

8. It is relevant to note that this Court vide judgment dated

22.04.2022 allowed S.A. No.56 of 2013 and set aside the judgment

and decree dated 11.09.2012 passed by learned Additional District

KL,J C.C. No.1266 of 2022

Judge, Nalgonda in A.S. No.57 of 2010 and confirmed the judgment

and decree dated 28.07.2010 passed by trial Court in O.S. No.89 of

2007. In the said judgment, dated 22.04.2022 in S.A. No.56 of 2013

passed by this Court, there is specific finding that Mr. Nagulapati

Ramulu, the plaintiff, failed to establish his possession over the

subject property, therefore, he is not entitled for perpetual injunction.

9. According to the petitioners, they have submitted copy of the

said judgment and copy of the order dated 05.07.2021 in W.P.

No.14622 of 2021 to the respondents. Petitioner No.1 went to

respondent No.2 police station on 25.05.2022 to find out the status of

FIR No.92 of 2022 lodged against the said Mr. Nagulapati Ramulu

and his wife. Respondent N.2 requested him to get the land surveyed

and then enter into the land, otherwise there will be serious action

against both the petitioners. Thus, according to the petitioners,

respondent No.2 colluded with the said Nagulapati Ramulu and is

interfering with their agricultural operations and peaceful possession

over the subject land.

10. On 02.07.2022, the said Nagulapati Ramulu threatened

petitioner No.1. He has recorded the same in his mobile phone and

then he called respondent No.2 and informed the same, who also

KL,J C.C. No.1266 of 2022

threatened him. He has also recorded the conversion between him and

respondent No.2 and he has narrated the same in paragraph No.8 of

the affidavit and filed C.D. Therefore, a contempt notice dated

09.07.2022 was issued. Even then, respondent No.2 registered a case

in Crime No.85 of 2022 on the complaint lodged by Nagulapati

Ramulu on 03.07.2022 against the petitioners herein for the offences

punishable under Sections - 447 and 427 read with 34 IPC. Further,

on the complaint lodged by the wife of Nagulapati Ramulu, Smt.

Nagulapati Nagamani, Crime No.154 of 2022 was also registered by

the very same Police Station, and respondent No.2 after completion of

investigation laid charge sheet against the petitioners and others for

the offences punishable under Sections - 447, 326, 324 and 506 read

with 34 IPC and the same was taken on file as C.C. No.14 of 2023.

The petitioners filed copy of the said charge sheet along with petition

I.A. No.1 of 2023.

11. Despite the aforesaid finding in the judgment dated

22.04.2022 in S.A. No.56 of 2013, respondent No.2 vide letter dated

19.07.2022 requested the Tahsildar, Kattangur Mandal, to conduct

survey of land in Survey No.902 of Eedulur village on the ground that

there is dispute between the petitioners and the said Nagulapati

KL,J C.C. No.1266 of 2022

Ramulu with regard to the subject land which is likely to be result of

breach of peace and tranquility. Thus, respondent No.2 willfully

disobeyed the orders dated 05.07.2021 passed by this Court in W.P.

No.14622 of 2021.

12. Respondent No.2 filed counter admitting addressing letter

dated 19.07.2022 and also registration of two crimes. He has also

mentioned the judgment dated 22.04.2022 passed by this Court in S.A.

No.56 of 2013 and also relevant paragraph of the said judgment. He

has also admitted about requesting the Tahsildar to conduct survey.

13. Referring to the same, this Court issued Form No.1 to

respondent No.2. He has filed additional counter affidavit dated

20.02.2023 vide USR No.19365 of 2023 stating that he made the

statement, also laid a charge sheet on 28.12.2022 against the

petitioners in bona fidely in paragraph No.13 of the counter with a

view to protect the peace and tranquility in the Village and with a

view to maintain law and order in the Police Station limits. He has no

intention to violate the orders of the Court. He has no intention or

desire to lower the majesty of this Court. Therefore, he has tendered

unconditional apology.

KL,J C.C. No.1266 of 2022

14. The aforesaid facts would reveal that there are disputes

between the petitioners and the said Nagulapati Ramulu. However,

vide judgment dated 22.04.2022 in S.A. No.56 of 2013, this Court set

aside the judgment dated 11.09.2012 in A.S. No.57 of 2010 and

confirmed the judgment and decree dated 28.07.2010 in O.S. No.89 of

2007. Thus, the suit filed by Mr. Nagulapati Ramulu vide O.S. No.89

of 2007 seeking perpetual injunction was dismissed. There is specific

finding that the plaintiff failed to seek survey of the subject land. In

the light of the same, respondent No.2 cannot request or direct the

petitioners to get the land surveyed. He could not have addressed the

letter dated 19.07.2022 to the Tahsildar, Kattangur Mandal with a

request to conduct survey on the ground that there are disputes

between two parties.

15. It is relevant to note that on the complaint lodged by Mr.

Nagulapati Ramulu, respondent No.2 registered a case in Crime No.85

of 2022 against the petitioners herein for the offences punishable

under Sections - 447 and 427 read with 34 of IPC. Further, on the

complaint lodged by the wife of Nagulapati Ramulu, Smt. Nagulapati

Nagamani, Crime No.154 of 2022 was also registered by the very

same Police Station, and on completion of investigation, respondent

KL,J C.C. No.1266 of 2022

No.2 laid charge sheet against the petitioners herein for the offence

punishable under Sections - 447, 326, 324 and 506 read with 34 of

IPC and the same was taken on file as C.C. No.14 of 2023. The

aforesaid registration of crime is contrary to the findings in the

judgment dated 22.04.2022 passed by this Court in S.A. No.56 of

2013.

16. The aforesaid facts would also reveal that Nagulapati

Ramulu obtained the aforesaid order dated 04.11.2020 in W.P.

No.19048 of 2020 by suppressing the fact of suspending the judgment

and decree dated 11.09.2012 in A.S. No.57 of 2010 by this Court vide

order dated 01.02.2023 in SAMP No.106 of 2013 in S.A. No.56 of

2013. In the order dated 05.07.2021, the said facts were categorically

mentioned by this Court. Even then, respondent No.2 directed the

petitioners herein to get the land surveyed, also registered the

aforesaid Crime No.85 of 2022 and also laid the charge sheet against

them in Crime No.154 of 2022 for the offences punishable under

Sections - 447, 326, 324 and 506 read with 34 of IPC. There is no

denial with regard to the conversation between petitioner No.1 and

respondent No.2 by respondent No.2 in the counter as well as

additional counter. He has threatened petitioner No.1. Thus,

KL,J C.C. No.1266 of 2022

according to this Court, respondent No.2 willfully and deliberately

violated the interim orders dated 05.07.2021 passed by this Court in

W.P. No.14622 of 2021 by interfering with agricultural operations

being carried out by the petitioners herein.

17. As far as respondent No.1 is concerned, he is the Circle

Inspector of Shaligouraram Circle under which respondent No.2

Police Station comes. Though he was made as party in the aforesaid

writ petition and also in the present contempt case, instead of

supervising the investigation, he also remained as a mute spectator

and allowed respondent No.2 to commit the aforesaid irregularities.

In the light of the same, respondent No.1 is warned not to repeat such

things in future.

18. The present Contempt Case is accordingly allowed in part

against respondent No.2 herein sentencing him to suffer three (03)

months imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two

Thousand Only) within 04 (four) weeks from today. As far as

respondent No.1 is concerned, this Contempt Case is disposed of with

a warning not to repeat such things in future.

KL,J C.C. No.1266 of 2022

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in

the contempt case shall stand closed.

_________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J 1st September, 2023 Mgr