Telangana High Court
Sri Madhurakavi Laxmana Swamy vs Sri Navin Mittal, Ias on 22 November, 2024
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
CONTEMPT CASE No.1393 of 2024
ORDER:
This Contempt Case is filed invoking the provisions
under Section 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act to
punish the respondents for wilful and deliberate
disobedience of the order passed by this Court in I.A.No.2
of 2019 in W.P.No.23176 of 2017, dated 05.02.2024.
2. Heard Sri BHR Choudary, learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Revenue
(Assignment) appearing for the respondents.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently
contended that respondent No.4 has passed the
resumption order vide proceedings No.B/454/2022, dated
19.08.2024, exercising the powers conferred under the
provisions of Telangana Assigned Lands (Prohibition of
Transfers) Act, 1977 (herein after called as "Act" for
brevity). Respondent No.4 himself in the said order stated
that the records pertaining to the subject property are not
available. In the absence of records, respondent No.4 ought
2 JSR,J
not to have passed the said order. He further contended
that respondent No.4 passed the above said order only to
defeat the rights of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the
petitioner further contended that the Village Revenue
Officer has tampered with the record and entered the name
of his mother in the records. However, the name of the
petitioner was recorded in sethwar. In such circumstances,
respondent No.4 is liable for punishment.
4. In support of his contention, learned counsel has
relied upon the judgments of the High Court for the State
of Telangana in Mudusu Ramesh and others v. Smt.
Shanta Kumari, IAS and others 1 and High Court of
Andhra Pradesh in ITC Limited, Visakhapatnam v.
State of Andhra Pradesh and others 2
5. Per contra, learned Government Pleader submits that
pursuant to the orders of this Court dated 05.02.2024,
respondent No.4 issued notice and only after considering
the explanation submitted by the petitioner, respondent
No.4 passed the resumption order on 19.08.2024, by giving
2024 (5) ALT 20 (S.B.)
2024 (2) ALD 246 (AP)
3 JSR,J
valid reasons. He further submits that in view of the
compliance of the order passed by this Court, respondents
are not liable for punishment under the provisions of the
Act.
6. Having considered the rival submissions made by the
respective parties and after perusal of the material
available on record, it is evident that this Court disposed of
the review petition filed vide I.A.No.2 of 2019 in
W.P.No.23176 of 2017, granting liberty to respondent No.4
herein to initiate proceedings afresh by duly following the
provisions of the Act and Rules made thereunder, if so he
advised, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of the order, and respondent No.1, who is
petitioner in the present case is permitted to submit his
explanation to the said notice, by raising all the grounds
which are available in law, and on receipt of such
explanation, respondent No.4 is directed to consider the
same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law,
after giving opportunity to the respective properties
4 JSR,J
including personal hearing within a period of eight (8)
weeks from thereafter.
7. The record discloses that pursuant to the above said
order, respondent No.4 has issued Form-I notice under
Rule 3 of the Telangana Assigned Lands (Prohibition of
Transfers) Rules, 2007 (herein after called as "Rules" for
brevity), on 25.07.2024, directing the petitioner to submit
explanation. Pursuant to the same, petitioner has
submitted explanation. Thereafter, respondent No.4 passed
the resumption order 19.08.2024. In the said order,
respondent No.4 only stated that the record pertaining to
issuance of passbook to one Smt.T.Athulayamma is not
available. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for
the petitioner that in the absence of records pertaining to
the subject property, respondent No.4 is not entitled to
pass the resumption order is not tenable under law.
However, the issue with regard to whether respondent No.4
is having records in respect of the subject property or not,
cannot be adjudicated in the contempt proceedings. This
Court while disposing of I.A.No.2 of 2019 in W.P.No.23176
5 JSR,J
of 2017 on 05.02.2024, only directed respondent No.4 to
pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after
following the procedure prescribed under the provisions of
the Act and Rules made thereunder.
8. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for
the petitioner in ITC Limited, Visakhapatnam's case (2
supra), the High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that not
affording opportunity to the petitioner therein and not
giving reasons in the impugned order is gross violation of
principles of natural justice. The above said principle is not
applicable to the case on hand on the ground that the
petitioner has not disputed that respondent No.4 has given
opportunity to the petitioner before passing the resumption
order. Similarly, the principle laid down in Mudusu
Ramesh's case (1 supra) is also not applicable to the
present facts of the case, on the ground that in the said
case, the matter pertains to regularisation of the services of
the employee.
9. In view of the resumption order dated 19.08.2024
passed by respondent No.4, exercising powers conferred
6 JSR,J
under the provisions of the Act, this Court is of the
considered view that no further adjudication is required in
the Contempt Case.
10. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed. However,
petitioner is granted liberty to avail the remedies as
available under law, including questioning the resumption
order dated 19.08.2024 passed by respondent No.4, by
raising all the grounds which are available under law. No
costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall
stand closed.
______________________________
JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
22-11-2024
vsl
