Telangana High Court
Rachakonda Swamy, vs The Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy ... on 5 January, 2024
* THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR
+ Writ Appeal No.1786 of 2008 and C.C.No.1577 of 2014
% 05.01.2024
# Between:
W.A.No.1786 of 2008
Rachakonda Swamy & others Appellants
Vs.
The Joint Collector,
Ranga Reddy District & others. Respondents
C.C.No.1577 of 2014
Rachakonda Swamy & others Petitioners
Vs.
The Joint Collector,
Ranga Reddy District & others. Respondents
! Counsel for Appellants : Ms.M.SLK.Srutha Keerthi
(in W.A.No.1786 of 2008)
M.V.Durga Prasad
(in C.C.No.1577 of 2014)
^ Counsel for Respondents : Mr. M.V.Durga Prasad
(in W.A.No.1786 of 2008)
Ms.M.SLK.Srutha Keerthi
(in C.C.No.1577 of 2014)
<GIST:
> HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
1 2004 (2) ALD 419
2 (1996) 4 SCC 622
2
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR
Writ Appeal No.1786 of 2008 and C.C.No.1577 of 2014
COMMON JUDGMENT:
(Per the Hon'ble Sri JusticeN.V.Shravan Kumar)
The appellant Nos.1 to 5 herein are the writ
petitioners in W.P.No.8381 of 2005. Appellant Nos.6 to 8
herein are the legal representatives of deceased appellant
No.1 and they are brought on record by order of this Court
dated 01.11.2023 in I.A.No.1 of 2023 in W.A.No.1786 of
2008. The respondent Nos.1 to 4 remain intact in both Writ
Appeal and the Writ petition.
2. Heard Ms.Mandhata Slk Srutha Keerthi, learned
counsel for the appellants and Mr.M.V.Durga Prasad
learned counsel for respondent No.4.
Facts in the Writ Appeal:
3. This intra Court appeal is filed against order dated
03.11.2008 of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ
petition confirming the order dated 05.02.2005 of
respondent No.1/Joint Collector who dismissed the
revision which is filed against order dated 17.01.2003
passed by respondent No.2/Revenue Divisional Officer
setting aside purported succession orders. The writ
petitioners are the appellants who claim as legal heirs of
Late Rajaiah and Late Pentaiah, who are the original
owners.
4. The petitioners submit that they have obtained a
succession order dated 13.01.1999 issued by respondent
No.3/Mandal Revenue Officer for which no record is
available. The dispute pertains to Ac.3-11 gts of land in
Sy.No.286 of Gajularamaram Village, Quthbullapur
Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. It is the case of the
petitioners that the subject lands are claimed by the
petitioners, who are the successors of late Rajaiah and late
Pentaiah, who were the original owners of the property and
by virtue of succession, the petitioners/appellants have
become lawful owners of the property.
5. Respondent No.4/Association submits that they
have purchased properties through registered sale deeds
executed by General Power of Attorney of late Rajaiah. It is
the common case that by order dated 13.01.1999, a
purported succession order was passed by respondent
No.3/Mandal Revenue Officer, Qutbullapur Mandal and
consequently pattadar passbook and title deeds were
issued in favour of the petitioners. Thereafter, respondent
No.4/Association along with 33 others have filed
representation on 29.01.2000 before the Revenue
Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy District requesting him to
cancel pattadar passbooks and title deeds issued by
respondent No.3 and instructed him to demarcate the
plots. Thereafter, respondent No.3 addressed a letter dated
28.03.2000 to respondent No.2 with a request to take
action for cancellation of pattadar passbook and title deeds
issued in favour of petitioners. Thereafter, respondent No.2
treated the representation filed by respondent
No.4/Association as appeal and had set aside the
succession order dated 13.01.1999 and also cancelled
pattadar passbooks and title deeds dated 17.01.2003 and
thereafter revision petitions filed by petitioners before
respondent No.1 was dismissed vide order dated
05.02.2005. Questioning the said two orders, the writ
petition in W.P.No.8381 of 2005 was filed.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit
that the land in question ceased to be an agricultural land
by the time of alteration of record of rights, the jurisdiction
of respondent No.2 was ousted and consequently order
passed by him was without jurisdiction. He would further
submit that no appeal was filed by respondent
No.4/Association against the succession order passed in
favour of petitioners and that respondent No.2 ought not to
have entertained the representation made by respondent
No.4 and letter dated 28.03.2000 addressed by respondent
No.3 by treating them as appeal and set aside the orders
passed by respondent No.3 in favour of petitioners granting
succession and also issuance of pattadar passbooks and
title deeds. He would further submit that no appeal against
an order granting pattadar passbooks and title deeds lies
to respondent No.2 and that the finding of respondent No.2
that the land ceased to be an agricultural land was based
on disputed documents and hence such a finding is
unsustainable.
7. Respondent No.4 opposed the said contentions and
submitted that passing of succession order in favour of the
appellants itself was patently illegal because by that time,
the land in question seems to be an agricultural land
denuding respondent No.3 of his jurisdiction in view of the
definition of "land" under Section 2(4) of the Andhra
Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbook Act, 1971
(for short 'the Act' hereinafter) and it was further submitted
that issuance of pattadar passbooks is an act
consequential to the passing of succession order under
Section 5(3) of the Act and as held by this Court in N.Bal
Reddy v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad 1, the
action of issuance of pattadar passbooks as a consequence
of succession order is amenable to the appellate
jurisdiction under Section 5(5) of the Act.
8. Learned Single Judge has carefully considered the
submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and
after perusal of the record had framed three points for
consideration viz.,
2004 (2) ALD 419
(i) Whether respondent No.2 had jurisdiction to
decide the question raised by respondent
No.4.
(ii) Whether an appeal lay against the order
passed by respondent No.3 in favour of the
petitioners and if the answer is affirmative,
whether respondent No.2 was legally
justified in treating the representation made
by respondent No.4 / Association and
others as an appeal, and
(iii) Whether the order passed by respondent
No.2 on merits and as affirmed by
respondent No.1 suffers from any illegality
warranting interference of this Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
9. As regards point (i), learned Single Judge held that
the plea of the learned counsel for the petitioners is self-
defeating. If the land ceased to be an agricultural land even
by the time of alteration of record of rights at the instance
of the petitioners by respondent No.3, the latter is denuded
of his jurisdiction to entertain the application for
amendment of record of rights and, consequently, his
action was without jurisdiction. The issuance of pattadar
passbooks on the strength of such amendment would be
equally without jurisdiction. Respondent No.2 is, therefore,
entitled to entertain the appeal filed against the order of
respondent No.3 and correct this jurisdictional error.
Therefore, point (i) was accordingly answered against the
petitioners.
10. With regard to point (ii), the learned Single Judge
held that the order dated 13.01.1999 i.e., order of
succession was passed in favour of petitioners but the copy
of the same had not been filed. However, after passing of
such order, members of respondent No.4/Association
approached respondent No.3 with an application to supply
a copy of the said order. However, respondent No.2
specifically observed that the file relating to succession
order was not available in the office of respondent No.3.
Learned Single Judge further observed that being the
beneficiaries of the said order, the burden lies on the
petitioners to produce the copy of the said order.
11. Learned Single Judge further observed that since
the order dated 13.01.1999 was not supplied to respondent
No.4/Association, they were deprived from filing a formal
appeal questioning the said order. The learned Single
Judge observed that though a form and limitation are
prescribed under the Rules to avail the remedy of appeal,
in the absence of supply of the copy of the order,
respondent No.4 could not have filed a formal appeal. In
such situation, learned Single Judge considered that the
substance is more than the form, which is relevant in
exercising his appellate jurisdiction, when a patent
illegality was brought to his notice and held that
respondent No.2 was justified in treating the
representation made on behalf of respondent No.4 as an
appeal.
12. With regard to Point (iii), learned Single Judge
observed that from the order passed by respondent No.2, it
can be seen that he has set aside the order passed by
respondent No.3 in favour of petitioners on the ground that
the record made available before him showed that before
13.01.1999, the date on which the purported succession
order passed in favour of petitioners, the land was ceased
to be an agricultural land and therefore, respondent No.3
had no jurisdiction to entertain the application of the
petitioners for grant of succession/amendment of Record of
Rights. Learned Single Judge further observed that
respondent No.2 relied on several documents, such as,
Xerox copies of pahanies, sale deeds, copy of layout plan
etc., to show that the land was converted into house plots
and sold. That apart, respondent No.2 also placed reliance
on the orders passed in I.A.Nos.24, 25 and 26 of 1997 in
O.S.No.6 of 1997 filed by the petitioners against the alleged
GPA holder, by name, Sri D.Brahma Chary and their co-
sharer R.Pentaiah. Learned counsel for the petitioners
strenuously contended that the description of land as plots
in various documents produced by respondent No.4 ought
not to have weighed with respondent No.2 in concluding
that the land has ceased to be an agricultural land.
13. The documents produced by respondent
No.4/Association to show that the land was converted into
residential plots long before passing of order dated
13.01.1999 and thereby ousting the jurisdiction of
respondent No.3 to entertain an application under the
provisions of the Act. As such respondent No.2 did not
commit any illegality. Section 2(4) of the Act defines the
"land" as under:
"Land" means land which is used or is
capable of being used for purposes of agriculture,
including horticulture but does not include land
used exclusively for non-agricultural purposes."
14. Learned Single Judge considering the said
contentions held that the documents produced before
respondent No.2 were sufficient to conclude that the
subject land has ceased to be an agricultural land and if
the petitioners seriously dispute the validity of the
registered sale deeds, the only remedy available to the
petitioners is to file a civil suit under Specific Relief Act,
1963 for declaration of their title and if any such relief is
granted in favour of the petitioners, they can assert their
right and make fresh application for amendment of Record
of Rights and issuance of pattadar passbooks under
Sections 4 and 6A of the Act respectively.
15. Learned Single Judge after considering all the
above aspects was of the view that order passed by
respondent No.2 as confirmed by respondent No.1 did not
suffer from any illegality warranting interference of this
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and
accordingly writ petition was dismissed.
16. In the grounds raised in the appeal, it is urged
that in terms of Section 2(4) of the Act, the learned Single
Judge ought to have held that both the appellate authority
and revisional authority were also denuded of the
jurisdiction to hold so.
17. Learned counsel for respondent No.4/Association
would submit that order granting succession by
respondent No.3 is wholly without jurisdiction and subject
land is not "land" within the meaning of Section 2(4) of the
Act and that remedy for the petitioners would lie only
before the Civil Court. Since, the order of Mandal Revenue
Officer has not been supplied, respondent
No.4/Association were deprived of the opportunity of filing
the appeal and the orders passed by respondent No.2 was
justified in treating the representation made by respondent
No.4/Association as an appeal. He would further submit
that arguments of the writ petitioners itself is self-defeating
and the entire burden lies on the petitioners to produce the
order of Mandal Revenue Officer.
18. Learned counsel would further submit that
pattadars and appellants entered into agreement of sale
with one D.Brahma Chary who was registered General
Power of Attorney Holder and as per the layout of Gram
Panchayat, the subject lands were sold to pattadars which
is being purchased by members of respondent
No.4/Association through General Power of Attorney holder
and that the pahanies also show the nature of land as
plots. He would further submit that O.S.No.6 of 1997 was
filed by the petitioners against D.Brahma Chary and one of
their predecessors late Pentaiah for partition, separate
possession and perpetual injunction and the said suit was
dismissed for non-prosecution on 23.01.2006 and
I.A.Nos.24 and 25 of 1997 in the said O.S.No.6 of 1997
filed for grant of interim injunction were dismissed on
merits. The succession order issued by respondent No.3 in
favour of appellants was given during the pendency of the
suit but no record of succession order was available and
that on 28.03.2000 a letter was issued from Mandal
Revenue Officer to Revenue Divisional Officer stating that
the earlier Mandal Revenue Officer wrongly sanctioned
succession of the land in favour of the petitioners and
action shall be taken for the same. Thereafter, Revenue
Divisional Officer had set aside the order of Mandal
Revenue Officer and cancelled the pattadar passbooks and
title deeds as the land was non-agriculture, before Mandal
Revenue Officer order and found that succession file was
not available in the Mandal Office and thereafter the Joint
Collector vide proceedings dated 05.02.2005 has dismissed
the revision petition as the land has been sold out duly
making plots by the original pattadars long back.
Facts in the Contempt Case No.1577 of 2014:
19. The petitioner who is respondent No.4 in the writ
appeal has filed this Contempt Case stating that the
respondents have deliberately and wilfully violated the
status quo order dated 26.12.2008 passed in
W.A.M.P.No.3490 of 2008 in W.A.No.1786 of 2008. It is
submitted that subsequent to the status quo orders passed
on 26.12.2008, M/s.Canara Bank, Basheer Bagh Branch
has issued public notice on 04.09.2012 in Andhra Jyothi,
Telugu Daily Newspaper stating that Ac.1-20 gts in
Sy.No.286 (Part) of Gajularamaram Village was put to sale
under Securitization And Reconstructions of Financial
Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and
that the auction will be conducted on 03.10.2012. After
enquiry, petitioner came to know that the other part of the
land was also mortgaged to Bank of India, Basheerbagh
branch. Thereafter petitioner herein made representations
to both the Banks to defer from the proposed auction to be
held on 03.10.2012.
20. Thereafter the said Bank has conducted the
auction but could not sell the property as prospective
purchasers came to know about the previous sales made in
favour of members of the petitioner Association and that
the land was the subject matter of the above W.A.No.1786
of 2008. Thereafter, petitioner made enquiries and found
that the respondents are wilfully and deliberately violating
the status quo order and alienated the entire extent of
Ac.3-11 gts., Gajularamaram Village, Quthbullapur
Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. It is further submit that
this Court, at the time of admission of the Writ Appeal, has
passed the following status quo order on 26.12.2008, which
is extracted hereunder:
"Heard both sides.
All through during the pendency of the writ
petition, the orders of status quo were in force.
Therefore, status quo obtaining as on today
shall be maintained until further orders."
21. Subsequent to the passing of the status quo order
by this Court on 26.12.2008, the following sale deeds were
alienated:
Sl.No. Doc. No. and Date Vendors Purchaser
1. 698/2011 dt.22.01.2011 Respondent B.Prasad
Registered Deed of Nos.4 & 5 Reddy
Cancellation
2. 5107/2010 dt.21.06.2010 Respondent Satya
Registered sale deed Nos.1 to 3 Telecom
Private Ltd.,
3. 851/2011 dt.27.01.2011 Respondent Satya
Registered sale deed Nos.4 & 5 & Telecom
three others. Private Ltd.,
22. It is submitted that entire extent of land in Ac.03-
11 gts., was sold between the years 1988 to 2000 itself. It
is further submitted that respondent Nos.1, 3 to 5 having
violated the orders of this Court, on 11.10.2008 has
trespassed into the land of the petitioner Association and
thereby again deliberately and wilfully violated the orders
of this Court. The petitioner further submits that
respondent No.6 who worked as Mandal Revenue Officer
and having knowledge of the above writ appeal i.e.,
W.A.No.1786 of 2008 and the status quo order granted by
this Court has deliberately and wilfully violated the orders
of this Court and issued pattadar passbooks and title
deeds with Patta Nos.813 and 812 to respondent Nos.4 and
5 herein respectively in the year 2010 ignoring the fact that
Pattadar passbooks and title deeds granted earlier were
cancelled and are subject matter of the present writ appeal.
23. The petitioner therefore submits that there is
continuous cause of action at every point of time and the
respondents have wilfully and deliberately violated the
orders of this Court and as such the present Contempt
Case is filed.
24. A common counter affidavit has been filed on
behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 5 and while denying the
allegations made in the Contempt Case, respondent Nos.1
to 5 submits that the alienations were made by the
respondents in the year 2007 even before status quo was
passed in the year 2007 and therefore respondents have
not violated the order of this Court dated 26.12.2008
passed in W.A.M.P.No.3490 of 2008 in W.A.No.1786 of
2008 and that the registration of the document
No.521/2007 dated 13.07.2007 itself is a notice to the
petitioner and that the petitioner did not bring it to the
notice of this Court at the time of grant of interim order
and the respondents have nothing to do with the
subsequent alienations made by the subsequent
purchasers. It is further submitted that there is no status
quo granted in respect of the said property with regard to
mutation of names in the records and dispossessing the
petitioner from the property and that the petitioner though
having knowledge having knowledge about the alleged
sales, filed this Contempt Case by giving incoherent
reasons and that the petitioner having knowledge about
the sales did not raise any objection at the time of grant of
interim orders till the year 2014.
25. Respondent No.6 has filed an affidavit and would
submit that he worked as a Deputy Collector and Tahsildar
of Quthbullapur Mandal during the period 19.03.2010 to
22.09.2011 and would state that neither the petitioner nor
respondent Nos.1 to 5 has brought to his notice about the
orders of this Court passed in W.A.M.P.No.3490 of 2008 in
W.A.No.1786 of 2008. He would further submit that the
pattadar passbooks and title deeds in respect of Ac.01-25
gts., in Sy.No.286 of Gajularamaram Village for ½ share of
late R.Pentaiah were issued to respondent Nos.4 and 5 as
successors of late R.Pentaiah based on the report of the
Mandal Revenue Inspector and as the dead person's name
should not be continued in records, by following procedure
contemplated under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act and by
following Rule 18 of A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar
Passbooks Rules, 1989. It is further submitted that the file
did not disclose any representations and the order passed
by the Revenue Divisional Officer and the Joint Collector
and the records also did not disclose the names of the
members of petitioner Association to send notices as
interested persons.
26. The respondent No.6 submits that he has no
knowledge of the status quo order dated 26.12.2008 and
has issued pattadar passbooks based on the report of
Mandal Revenue Inspector incorporating successors and
he has not received any objections from any interested
party and individuals in response to the notice issued in
Form - VIII under Rule 19(I) of the A.P. Rights in Land and
Pattadar Passbooks Rules and as such issued pattadar
passbooks recording succession. This Court on 20.04.2005
in W.P.M.P.No.11096 of 2005 in W.P.No.8381 of 2005
passed the following order:
"Notice.
Learned Government Pleader appearing
for R.1 to R.3 and Sri M.Durga Prasad who
entered appearance for R.6 seeks time for filing
counter.
Post after summer vacation 2005.
In the meanwhile, status quo obtaining as
on today as to the nature and possession of the
land in question shall be maintained."
27. A common reply affidavit was filed by petitioner in
which it is submitted that at the time of admission of the
writ petition, this Court was pleased to grant status quo in
W.P.M.P.No.11096 of 2005 in W.P.No.8381 of 2005 on
20.04.2005 and the same was continued during the
pendency of the writ appeal. It is further submitted that
the respondents have deliberately and wilfully violated the
orders of this Court falsely stating that they have already
alienated the property under registered sale deeds and has
reiterated the submissions made in the Contempt Case.
Analysis and Conclusion in both W.A.No.1786 of
2008 and C.C.No.1577 of 2014:
28. The subject matter of the writ petition pertains to
the orders passed by respondent No.2 dated 17.01.2003
which has been confirmed by orders passed by respondent
No.1 dated 05.02.2005. Respondent No.4/Association
herein is the petitioner before respondent No.2 who vide
order dated 17.01.2003 allowed the petition. Aggrieved over
the same, the petitioners/appellants herein filed a revision
petition before the Joint Collector i.e., respondent No.1
herein.
29. In the order dated 17.01.2003, the Special Grade
Deputy Collector and Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga
Reddy East Division held that as per the certified copy of
the pahani, the land in Sy.No.286 (Ac.3-11 gts.) of
Gajularamaram stands patta in the name of Chakali
Rajaiah. That the order passed by the Revenue Divisional
Officer unequivocally proves that the lands were being used
for non-agricultural uses. It appears that the pattadar
Rajaiah, his brother Pentaiah along with their sons
together entered into agreement of sale in favour of
D.Brahma Chary S/o. Ramulu on 31.12.1987 and a layout
plan for 56 plots was prepared and got approved in respect
of the suit land.
29.1. In pursuance of the agreement of sale entered
through the GPA holders, plots admeasuring 200 sq.yds.,
each were sold to the members of the petitioner/society
therein in the years 1989 to 1996. The appellants have
filed a suit in O.S.No.6 of 1997 on the file of District Munsif
at Medchal against half share pattadar i.e., R.Pentaiah
S/o. Muthaiah and the agreement holders D.Brahma
Chary. The District Munsiff held that the petition schedule
land was already sold to several persons and no
explanation was given by the petitioners regarding the
execution of power of attorney and unless an elaborate trial
is conducted, it is not possible to come to a conclusion
with respect to the possession of the property. However,
the respondents did not challenge the above orders of the
District Munsiff and the same has become final but the
main suit was still pending.
29.2. Thereafter, on the death of Chakali Rajaiah, the
original pattadar, his sons and others moved a petition
before the Mandal Revenue Officer, Quthbullapur for
sanction of succession and the Mandal Revenue Officer
vide his proceedings No.A/3621/98 dated 13.01.1999
granted succession of the land in favour of Pentaiah and
his three sons in equal shares. However, the same is not
available in the Mandal Office. The Mandal Revenue Officer
in his report dated 28.03.2000 called for on the
representation of the plot owners and informed that before
the receipt of objection petition dated 18.01.1999 the
succession orders and pattadar passbooks/title deeds were
issued and requested to take further action for cancellation
of pattadar passbooks and title deeds. The representation
dated 29.01.2000 of the appellants and on the basis of the
report of Mandal Revenue Officer, the case was taken on
file as an appeal. It was further observed that the
appellants were not a party to the succession orders and as
such there was no possibility for them to file an appeal
within limitation when the pattadar passbooks were
issued. Therefore, when their substantial rights were being
affected, the trivial issues such as filing appeal in a proper
format can be ignored moreso, when his predecessor in
office has taken case on file as an appeal.
29.3. The Revenue Divisional Officer/respondent
No.2 further held that while considering the definition of
"land" under Section 2(4) of the Act held that on the date of
passing succession order dated 13.01.1999, the land in
question herein was no more agricultural land for which
the provisions of the Act is made applicable and that
succession orders dated 13.01.1999 passed under Section
5(3) of the Act are not sustainable under law, particularly,
when the land was already sold out as observed in the
District Munsiff orders dated 17.01.1998 in I.A.Nos.24 and
25 of 1997 in O.S.No.6 of 1997 and also as per the copies
of registered sale deed executed by pattadar from the year
1989 to 1996. Accordingly, the petition filed by the
appellant society was allowed and the succession orders
passed by Mandal Revenue Officer in File No.A/3671/98
dated 13.01.1999 are set aside and the pattadar
passbooks/title deeds issued to the respondents in
pursuance of the Mandal Revenue Officer are also
cancelled for which the Mandal Revenue Officer,
Quthbullapur shall take necessary action in the matter.
30. For better appreciation of facts and for
consideration of the issues in the present writ appeal, the
order of the Joint Collector dated 05.02.2005, is extracted
hereunder for ready reference:
"Perused the material papers available on
record. It is seen that the land has been sold out
duly making house plots the original Pattadars
long back. A Civil Suit in O.S.No.6 of 1997 on file
of the District Munsif at Medchal is pending for
partition of the properties filed by the petitioners
herein. The observations in V.Goutham Rao Vs.
Revenue Divisional Officer, Jagital, 2003 (1)
ALT 615 in Para 12 at Page 619 are
illuminating:
"Under sub-section(2) of section 8 of the Act,
it is specifically contemplates that any persons
aggrieved as to any rights of which he is in
possession by any entry in the records of rights,
may institute a suit against any person denying
or interested to deny his title to such right for
declaration of his right under Chapter-vi of the
Specific Relief Act.
Further it also states that the entry in the
record of rights shall be amended in accordance
with any such declaration. Therefore, ultimately
it is finding of the Civil Court which governs the
field and which has to be given effect to by the
authorities and make entries accordingly. It is not
too late in the day to take judicial notice of
proceedings being initiated under the provisions
of Act where either a civil proceeding is already
pending or where a serious dispute of title is
involved. Having regard to the fact that the
authorities constituted under the aforesaid
statute would not venture to go into such serious
questions nor can decide thereupon, yet the
parties are taking recourse to such proceedings.
Ultimately after exhausting the remedies under
the Act, the parties are approaching Civil Court
whereby there is any amount of duplication in the
entire process apart from the time consumed
thereunder. In the circumstances, wherever there
is serious dispute of title or claims of any rival
title, it would not only be proper for the
authorities to refrain from proceedings with the
enquire as such under the provisions of the Act
but also pragmatic for the parties to approach the
Civil Court for establishing their right, title and
interest of whatsoever nature. Thought the
proceedings now are at the threshold i.e., at the
stage of issuance of a show cause notice, but one
cannot loose sight of the fact that ultimately the
authorities would have to fall back on the finding
of the Civil Court. In the view of the same, the
entire exercise by the authorities under the Act
would be a mere farce and migatory".
In the view of the above facts the revision is
not maintainable. Hence dismissed.
31. Coming to the Contempt Case, in the documents
filed along with the Contempt Case, it is pertinent to note
that Doc.No.527/2007 and Doc.No.1014/2007 were
executed on 13.10.2007 i.e., subsequent to the passing of
the status quo order dated 20.04.2005 by this Court in
W.P.M.P.No.11096 of 2005 in W.P.No.8381 of 2005.
Thereafter, Doc.No.698/2011 was executed on 22.01.2011,
Doc.No.5107/2010 was executed on 21.06.2010 and
Doc.No.851/2011 was executed on 27.01.2011 during the
pendency of writ appeal and when status quo order dated
26.12.2008 in W.A.M.P.No.3490 of 2008 in W.A.No.1786 of
2008 was in force, which is a clear case of Contempt and
deliberate and wilful violation of the orders of this Court.
32. With regard to the submission of respondent No.6
that he is not aware of the orders of this Court passed on
26.12.2008, the Registry has already marked and
communicated the said order to respondent No.6 i.e.,
Mandal Revenue Officer and the submissions that he is not
aware of the orders passed in W.A.M.P.No.3490 of 2008
dated 26.12.2008 is not sustainable. Even according to his
own admission in the counter affidavit at paragraph No.6
that he has no knowledge of status quo order of this Court
dated 26.12.2008, and as such he had issued pattadar
passbooks and title deeds based on the report of Mandal
Revenue Inspector incorporating successors. The
submissions of respondent No.6 that he is not aware of the
orders of this Court and that he has issued pattadar
passbooks based on the report of Mandal Revenue
Inspector incorporating successors without reference to the
orders of this Court wherein a copy has already been
marked to him by the Registry amounts to gross violation
of the orders passed by this Court. Respondent No.6 ought
to have known the details of Court orders pending in their
office at the time of filing the counter affidavit. Respondent
No.6 could have verified the orders of this Court dated
26.12.2008, which he did not do so, which means that
there is complete dereliction of duty and the same amounts
to wilful disobedience of the orders of this Court.
33. It is pertinent to note that the writ petition was
filed in the month of March, 2005 and the orders of status
quo was passed on 20.04.2005, thereafter the respondents
have filed W.V.M.P.No.2683 of 2006 to vacate the stay and
learned Single Judge on 24.06.2008 thought it fit to hear
the writ petition itself instead of passing an order in vacate
stay application.
34. In Delhi Development Authority v. Skipper
Construction Co.(p) Ltd., 2 the Hon'ble Supreme Court
held as follows in paragraphs 17 to 21:
"17. The principle that a contemnor ought
not to be permitted to enjoy and/or keep the
fruits of his contempt is well-settled. In
Mohd.Idris v. R.J. Babuji [1985 (1) S.C.R.598],
(1996) 4 SCC 622
this Court held clearly that undergoing the
punishment for contempt does not mean that the
Court is not entitled to give appropriate
directions for remedying and rectifying the
things done in violation of its Orders. The
petitioners therein had given an undertaking to
the Bombay High Court. They acted in breach of
it. A learned Single Judge held them guilty of
contempt and imposed a sentence of one
month's imprisonment. In addition thereto, the
learned Single Judge made appropriate
directions to remedy the breach of undertaking.
It was contended before this Court that the
learned Judge was not justified in giving the
aforesaid directions to in addition to punishing
the petitioners for contempt of court. The
argument was rejected holding that "the Single
Judge was quite right in giving appropriate
directions to close the breach [of undertaking]".
18. The above principle has been applied
even in the case of violation of orders of
injunction issued by Civil Courts. In Clarke v.
Chadburn [1985 (1) All.E.R. 211], Sir Robert
Megarry V-C observed:
"I need not cite authority for the
proposition that it is of high importance
that orders of the court should be obeyed.
Willful disobedience to an order of the
court is punishable as a contempt of
court, and I feel no doubt that such
disobedience may properly be described
as being illegal. If by such disobedience
the persons enjoined claim that they have
validly effected some charge in the rights
and liabilities of others, I cannot see why
it should be said that although they are
liable to penalties for contempt of court for
doing what they did, nevertheless those
acts were validly done. Of course, if an
act is done, it is not undone merely by
pointing out that it was done in breach in
law. If a meeting is held in breach of an
injunction, it cannot be said that the
meeting has not been held. But the legal
consequences of what has been done in
breach of the law may plainly be very
much affected by the illegality. It seems
to me on principle that those who defy a
prohibition ought not to be able to claim
that the fruits of their defiance are good,
and not tainted by the illegality that
produced them."
19. To the same effect are the decisions of
the Madras and Calcutta High Courts in Century
Flour Mills Limited v. S. Suppiah & Ors.
[A.I.R.1975 Madras 270] and Sujit Pal v. Prabir
Kumar Sun [A.I.R.1986 Calcutta 220]. In
Century Flour Mill Limited, it was held by a Full
Bench of the Madras High Court that where an
act is done in violation of an order of stay or
injunction, it is the duty of the Court, as a policy,
to set the wrong right and not allow the
perpetuation of the wrong-doing. The inherent
power of the Court, it was held, is not only
available in such a case, but it is bound to be
exercise it to undo the wrong in the interest of
justice. That was a case where a meeting was
held contrary to an order of injunction. The Court
refused to recognize that the holding of the
meeting is a legal one. It put back the parties in
the same position as they stood immediately
prior to the service of the interim order.
20. In Suraj Pal, a Division Bench of the
Calcutta High Court has taken the same view.
There, the defendant forcibly dispossessed the
plaintiff in violation of the order of injunction and
took possession of the property. The Court
directed the restoration of possession to the
plaintiff with the aid of police. The Court
observed that no technicality can prevent the
Court from doing justice in exercise of its
inherent powers. It held that the object of Rule 2-
A of Order 39 will be fulfilled only where such
mandatory direction is given for restoration of
possession to the aggrieved party. This was
necessary, it observed, to prevent the abuse of
process of law.
21. There is no doubt that this salutary
rule has to be applied and given effect to by this
Court, if necessary, by over-ruling any
procedural or other- technical objections. Article
129 is a constitutional power and when
exercised in tandem with Article 142, all such
objections should give away. The Court must
ensure full justice between the parties before it.
35. We have considered the rival submissions of the
parties and carefully perused the material available on
record.
36. On the narration of facts in the orders passed by
the Revenue Divisional Officer and Joint Collector, this
Court is of the opinion that learned Single Judge was
correct in holding that if the petitioners are seriously
disputing the validity of sale deeds, it is not possible for the
respondents to give any finding thereon and that the only
remedy available to the petitioners is to file a suit for
declaration of their title.
37. In view of the same, we are not inclined to differ
with the findings of the learned Single Judge and as such
warrants no interference. In the result, the writ appeal
W.A.No.1786 of 2008 fails and is accordingly dismissed.
38. This Court is of the firm view that respondent
Nos.1 to 6 in C.C.No.1577 of 2014 have not explained any
compelling circumstances or the reasons for not
implementing the status quo orders dated 20.04.2005 and
26.12.2008. In view of the same, it is beyond doubt that
respondent Nos.2 to 6 have deliberately and intentionally
disobeyed the status quo orders dated 20.04.2005 and
26.12.2008 passed by this Court and in that view, this
Court has no other option but to resort to contempt action.
Accordingly, Contempt Case in C.C.No.1577 of 2014 is
allowed and respondent Nos.2 to 6 (as respondent No.1 is
no more) are sentenced to simple imprisonment for a
period of four (04) weeks, and shall also pay fine of
Rs.2,000/- each within a period of four (04) weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order.
39. The above order of punishment shall be
suspended for a period of sixty (60) days to prefer an
appeal. In case no appeal is preferred or no stay is granted
by the Appellate Court in the appeal, if any preferred,
respondent Nos.2 to 6/Contemnors shall surrender before
Registrar (Judicial), High Court for the State of Telangana
to undergo sentence.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall
stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
______________________________________
ALOK ARADHE, CJ
______________________________________
N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR, J
05.01.2024
Note: L.R. copy to be marked.
B/o
mrm
