Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
S. Narsimha Rao vs Mr. P. Arun Babu,Revenue Divisional ... on 19 December, 2014
Author: C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy
Bench: C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY C.C.No.1563 of 2014 19-12-2014 S. Narsimha Rao.. Petitioner Mr. P. Arun Babu,Revenue Divisional Officer,Narsaraopet Division,(presently Gurazala Division),Guntur District and another.. Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Sri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar Counsel for respondents : Sri D. Ramesh, Special Government Pleader, State of Andhra Pradesh. <GIST: >HEAD NOTE: ?CASES REFERRED: 1.(2002) 4 SCC 21 2.(1993) 2 SCC 533 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY C.C.No.1563 of 2014 Date : 19-12-2014 The Court made the following : JUDGMENT:
This Contempt Case is filed complaining of wilful disobedience of order dated 28-10-2013 in W.P.No.33299 of 2011.
The facts leading to the filing of this Contempt Case are briefly stated hereunder :
The petitioner filed W.P.No.33299 of 2011 for a mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.2 in allegedly instructing him orally not to enter the land admeasuring Ac.2-00 in Sy.No.756/1 of Nadikudi village, Dachepalli Mandal, Guntur District (for short the subject land) and in threatening him with forcible dispossession from the same, as arbitrary and unconstitutional. The petitioner pleaded in the said Writ Petition that he is a landless poor person and therefore he was granted DKT patta bearing D.K.No.72/1409F dated 15-12-1999 over the subject land and that he was also issued pattadar passbook and title deed in respect of the said land. The petitioner further pleaded that based on the assignment and the pattadar passbook, he has obtained a loan of Rs.40,000/- from the Andhra Bank, Nadikudi branch and also received compensation of Rs.6,000/- towards loss of crop. That on 13-12-2011, respondent No.2 has visited the petitioners land and orally instructed him not to enter the land.
One Rajanala Kotagiri filed WPMP No.44770 of 2012 for impleading him in the Writ Petition wherein he has averred that the subject land is proposed to be assigned to him for industrial purpose. By order dated 28-10-2013, this Court ordered the said implead application by adding him as respondent No.4.
A counter-affidavit was filed in the Writ Petition wherein respondent No.2 inter alia averred that the subject land was not assigned to any one as it is unassessed waste covered with quarry pits and unfit for cultivation; that the Andhra Bank, Nadikudi branch appeared to have sanctioned loan to the petitioner without being aware of the fabricated nature of the alleged assignment; and that the crop loss compensation of Rs.6000/- was paid by his predecessor by oversight and the same was a mistake.
The petitioner filed a reply affidavit, along with which he has also filed show cause notice dated 26-11-2011 issued by respondent No.2 wherein it was alleged that the petitioner was holding a fake DKT patta issued by one Haji Sahib, the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Dachepalli and that as per the records of respondent No.2 neither DKT patta nor pattadar passbooks were incorporated therein.
After a detailed hearing, this Court disposed of the Writ Petition by order dated 28-10-2013. The material part of the order passed in the Writ Petition reads as under:
From the facts and the material discussed above, it is evident that the petitioner is basing his right on a purported DKT patta and also pattadar pass book and title deed issued in his favour based on such DKT patta. Though there is blanket denial of such grant, the fact that respondent No.3 has issued show cause notice on 26-11-2011 fortifies the plea of the petitioner that he is claiming his right over a DKT patta. The counter-affidavit is silent on the issue of show cause notice and the order if any that may have been passed thereon.
Inasmuch as the petitioner holds pattadar pass book and title deed, the plea of respondent No.3 that the land is vacant and not in anyones possession cannot be accepted. The DKT patta and the pattadar pass book held by the petitioner would give rise to a reasonable presumption that he is in possession of the subject land. Therefore, unless appropriate proceedings are initiated and an order on the authenticity or otherwise of the DKT patta is passed after enquiry, the petitioners possession cannot be interfered with by the respondents.
For the above mentioned reasons, the writ petition is allowed by directing the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner without holding an enquiry, wherein he shall be given an opportunity of being heard, and passing an order of eviction.
In this Contempt Case, the petitioner alleged that after disposal of the Writ Petition, respondent No.2 has issued notice dated 27-1-2014 directing him to appear in person in the Tahsildars office and submit his explanation; that in response thereto, the petitioner has submitted his explanation and that thereafter the petitioner has received notice dated 5-2-2014 from respondent No.1 directing him to appear on 22-2-2014 along with his explanation. It is further averred that the said notice was received by the petitioner on 25-2-2014; that accordingly he has rushed to the office of respondent No.1 on the same day and submitted a written explanation wherein he has stated that as he has received the notice only on 25-2-2014, he could not be present before respondent No.1 on 22-2-2014; that along with the explanation, he has enclosed DKT patta, pattadar passbook etc., and that thereafter, no enquiry was held by respondent No.1. The petitioner further averred that when he was ploughing the land on 5-9-2014, the Revenue Inspector and the Deputy Tahsildar came to the subject land and threatened him to vacate the subject land; that while the petitioner was resisting the officials, Rajanala Kotagiri, respondent No.4 in the Writ Petition, has planted a board showing that the subject land belongs to the Government and that trespassers will be prosecuted. The petitioner has questioned this action in this Contempt Case by pleading that unless a detailed enquiry is held and an appropriate order is passed as directed by this Court, the respondents are not entitled to interfere with the petitioners possession of the subject land and plant the board and that the action of the respondents constitutes blatant violation of the order of this Court.
Respondent No.1 filed a counter-affidavit wherein he has inter alia referred to the notice issued by the Tahsildar and the explanation submitted by the petitioner. He also referred to a purported report dated 4-2-2014 of respondent No.2. Respondent No.1 has averred that after receipt of the said report from respondent No.2, with a view to give opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, he has issued notice dated 5-2-2014 informing the petitioner that he should attend enquiry in person on 22-2-2014 with a written explanation; and that the petitioner has given his written explanation dated 25-2-2014 wherein he has stated that the subject land was assigned to him. Respondent No.1 has alleged that the petitioner has not attended the enquiry and that he has accordingly failed to avail the opportunity of personal hearing given to him. That based on the material available on record and the report of respondent No.2, it was pleaded that no assignment was made in favour of the petitioner and accordingly the pattadar passbook and title deed which were issued earlier were cancelled by respondent No.1 vide order dated 3-3-2014. Respondent No.1 further averred that plenty of opportunity of personal hearing was given to the petitioner before passing the order dated 3-3-2014 in compliance with the order dated 28- 10-2013 of this Court in W.P.No.33299 of 2011 and that he has strictly implemented the said order of this Court.
The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit wherein he has inter alia alleged that respondent No.1 has intentionally delayed sending of the notice through registered post by ante-dating the same and that with a view to allot the land to respondent No.4, the respondents have deliberately avoided holding of enquiry.
I have heard Sri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri D. Ramesh, learned Special Government Pleader, office of the learned Advocate-General of Andhra Pradesh and perused the record.
Before proceeding further, it needs to be clarified that this Court does not intend to pronounce upon the authenticity or otherwise of the DKT patta claimed by the petitioner. This aspect needs to be examined by the appropriate forum if the petitioner institutes any legal proceeding against order dated 3-3-2014 of respondent No.1. Therefore, the scope of consideration of the dispute arising in this Contempt Case is limited to examining whether respondent No.1 has deliberately and wilfully violated the order of this Court.
From the order dated 28-10-2013 passed in W.P.No.33299 of 2011, it is clear that this Court has directed the respondents to determine the authenticity or otherwise of the DKT patta and the pattadar passbooks under which the petitioner is claiming his right over the subject land by holding an enquiry wherein he shall give the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. The respondents were also directed not to evict the petitioner from the subject land without holding such enquiry and passing an order. That respondent No.1 has correctly understood the said order is evident from the fact that he has sent notice dated 5-2-2014 to the petitioner in pursuance of the order passed by this Court in the Writ Petition. In the said notice, while requiring the petitioners presence on 22-2-2014 before him, respondent No.1 informed the petitioner that if he fails to attend the enquiry on that day along with records, further action will be taken based on the records available in his office. Respondent No.1 has not disputed the fact that the notice sent by him was received by the petitioner only on 25-2-2014 i.e., 3 days after the scheduled date of enquiry. Indeed, along with the counter-affidavit, respondent No.1 himself has filed a copy of the acknowledgement, which clearly shows that the petitioner has received the notice of enquiry only on 25-2-2014. In his order dated 3-3-2014, respondent No.1 has referred to the written reply dated 25-2-2014 of the petitioner. A copy of the said reply is filed by the petitioner along with the Contempt Case. It is specifically mentioned by the petitioner in the said written reply that he was unable to attend the enquiry fixed for 22-2-2014 as he has received the notice only on 25-2-2014.
It is thus clear from these admitted facts that respondent No.1 is well aware of the fact that due to delayed service of notice on the petitioner, the latter was unable to attend the enquiry fixed for 22-2- 2014. Still, respondent No.1 has not thought it fit to hold enquiry by fixing another date. In his counter-affidavit, respondent No.1 has clearly stated that with a view to give the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing, he has issued notice dated 5-2-2014 fixing the enquiry on 22-2- 2014. This being so, respondent No.1 failed to give any reasons as to why he did not hold enquiry on his coming to know that the petitioner has received the notice much after 22-2-2014. Far from explaining his conduct in not holding enquiry, he has the audacity to plead in paragraph-4 of his counter-affidavit that he has given plenty of opportunity (sic: opportunities) of personal hearing to the petitioner before passing order dated 3-3-2014. In the concluding paragraph of the counter-affidavit, respondent No.1 further reiterated the said plea by claiming that he has strictly implemented the order of this Court and passed the order after duly giving the opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. This plea of respondent No.1 is an utter falsehood. Having admitted the fact that the enquiry notice was received by the petitioner only on 25-2-2014, respondent No.1 made a false claim that plenty of opportunity of personal hearing was given to the petitioner. His defence in the Contempt Case is thus a mere subterfuge.
What baffles this Court is when respondent No.1 received the petitioners reply on 25-2-2014 stating that he has received the enquiry notice much after the date fixed for the enquiry has expired, respondent No.1 went ahead with the passing of the order on 3-3-2014. It passes ones comprehension as to why respondent No.1 did not think it fit to hold an enquiry as directed by this Court, at least after 25-2-2014 and before he has passed the order on 3-3-2014. This conduct of respondent No.1 clearly demonstrates that he has shown scant respect for the order of this Court and evidently acted at the behest of respondent No.4 in the Writ Petition with a pre-conceived mind that an order adverse to the interests of the petitioner must be passed without holding any enquiry. Regrettably, at least when the Contempt Case was filed, respondent No.1 did not realise his contumacious conduct. Instead of retracing his steps and taking remedial measures by requesting this Court to give him one more opportunity to comply with the order of this Court, he has come out with a blatantly false plea that he has given the petitioner plenty of opportunity. This conduct of respondent No.1 proves that he is not feeling remorse or penitence. Except stating that he has great respect towards this Court, he has not even tendered an apology for his reproachable conduct. He has asserted and reiterated in his counter- affidavit that he has not violated the order of this Court. Respondent No.1 has not even furnished a faade of explanation as to why he did not hold enquiry inspite of specific direction issued by this Court.
From the uncontroverted facts of the case, I have no doubt whatsoever that respondent No.1 has deliberately and wilfully violated the order of this Court by passing an order on 3-3-2014 without holding any enquiry and making his subordinates to interfere with the petitioners possession of the land. This action on the part of respondent No.1 is in the teeth of the direction issued by this Court in W.P.No.33299 of 2011. Therefore, I hold respondent No.1 is guilty of wilful disobedience of the order of this Court and accordingly convict him under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for having committed contempt of Court.
As regards the sentence to be imposed on respondent No.1, I have given my thoughtful consideration to the same. Dealing with a case of brazen contempt, the Supreme Court, in Anil Ratan Sarkar Vs. Hirak Gosh , held :
In the contextual facts there cannot be any laxity, as otherwise the law courts would render themselves unless (sic: useless) and their order to utter mockery. Feeling of confidence and proper administration of justice cannot but be the hallmark of Indian jurisprudence and contra-action by courts will lose its efficacy. Tolerance of law courts there is, but not without limits and only upto a certain point and not beyond the same.
In B.M. Bhattacharjee (Major General) Vs. Russel Estate Corporation , the Supreme Court observed that all the officers of the Government must be presumed to know that under the constitutional scheme obtaining in this country orders of the Courts have to be obeyed implicitly and that orders of the Apex Court for that matter any Court should not be trifled with.
The Court is the last resort for a vexed litigant. The fabric of rule of law will remain strong so long as judicial orders are implemented in their letter and spirit. The Courts being sentinels of justice, the orders passed by them need to be implemented at all costs. Protection of rights of the citizens cannot be ensured if the State and its functionaries violate orders of the Courts with impunity. The majesty of Courts is the highest priority for every right thinking person in the society, lest, there will be anarchy in the system. If a judicial order is violated, it has a rippling effect on the dignity and the glory of the judicial institution, which in turn will make the people lose faith in the system itself.
As noted above, respondent No.1 is remorseless. By his conduct, respondent No.1 has seriously undermined the majesty of this Court. Therefore, I feel that it is a fit case where he must be sentenced with simple imprisonment for a period of one week, besides paying a fine of Rs.2000/-. Ordered accordingly. The conviction and sentencing of respondent No.1 shall be recorded in his Service Register.
The Registrar (Judicial) shall take further steps as laid down under Rule 31 of the Contempt of Courts Rules, 1980 for execution of this order.
The Contempt Case stands disposed of allowed.
____________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 19-12-2014