Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
P. Akshya Lingam And Ors. vs The Govt. Of A.P. Rep. By Its Prl. ... on 12 March, 1997
Equivalent citations: 1997(1)ALD(CRI)942, 1997(2)ALT131
Author: Ramesh Madhav Bapat
Bench: Ramesh Madhav Bapat
ORDER Ramesh Madhav Bapat, J.
1. The petitioners in the Contempt Case No. 1428 of 1996 had filed W.P. No. 27468 of 1995 with a prayer to issue a writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents therein to reconvey the surplus land of Ac. 1-00 in S.No. 286/AA of S.No. 286 situated at Khanapuram Haveli, Khammam Urban to the petitioners on par with Mr. Athota Radha Kishan Rao basing on the law laid down in the judgment passed in W.P.No. 11040 of 1992 dated 19-9-1994 by duly declaring the inaction of the respondents in not reconveying the land to the petitioners as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
2. On filing of the writ petition, notices were issued to the respondents therein. The respondents did not appear. Naturally they did not file the counter in spite of service of notices and therefore this Court by an order dated 8-4-1996 had directed the respondents therein to reconvey the land described in the above writ petition basing on the law laid down in W.P.No. 11040 of 1992.
3. The facts leading to the above writ petition can be briefly narrated as follows: That the land belonging to the petitioners was acquired by the Government for a specific public purpose. But after some time the Government has withdrawn the order of acquisition by issuing G.O.Ms.No, 628, Revenue Department, dated 10-5-1975 and therefore a representation was made by the petitioners to the respondents to reconvey the land in their favour. But the request made by the petitioners was not considered by the respondents and therefore this Court had directed the respondents to reconvey the land of the petitioners as per the law laid down in W.P.No. 11040 of 1992.
4. It further appears from the record that the learned single Judge of this Court Mr. Justice B. Subhashan Reddy while dealing with W.P.No. 11040 of 1992 had laid down the law and had declared that since G.O.Ms.No. 628, Revenue Department, dated 10-5-1975 was issued where the Government had taken the policy decision to reconvey the land to the respective owners but the Revenue Officials did not follow the G.O., and therefore the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No. 11040 of 1992 had passed the order directing the respondents to reconvey the land as the Government has taken the specific decision to reconvey the land as the land was no more required for the public purpose. Basing upon the similar analogy and the principle laid down by the learned Single Judge of this Court, this Court in W.P.No. 27468 of 1995 had passed the similar directions. Since the directions were not complied with, the petitioners herein had filed the Contempt Case for violating the orders of this Court with a prayer to take action against the respondents herein under the Contempt of Courts Act.
5. On filing of the aforesaid Contempt Case, a Review Petition was filed by the respondents herein in W.P.No. 27468 of 1995 to review the order of . this Court dated 8-4-1996. Since the Review Petition and the Contempt Case (are) relating to the same subject matter, they are disposed of by a common order.
6. The learned counsel Smt. K. Sree Kala appearing on behalf of the Contempt petitioners submits that (by this Court), the respondents herein did not reconvey the land in favour of the petitioners herein. The learned counsel further submitted that in the earlier writ petition the respondents did not file their counter and did not raise any objection for allowing the writ petition and thus this court had directed the respondents herein to reconvey the land in favour of the petitioners herein. The learned counsel further submitted that the present review petition has been filed by the respondents herein as a counter-blast to the Contempt Case filed by the petitioners herein. The learned counsel further submitted that the Government had taken a policy decision to reconvey the land in favour of the petitioners and others whose land was acquired earlier (and it) but was no more required by the Government. It was also specifically submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners herein that some of the owners received their land in pursuance of the G.O.Ms. No, 628 dated 10-5-1975. There is no reason for the respondents herein not to reconvey the land in favour of the petitioners herein. The learned counsel further submitted that, as a matter of fact, the land, which is already reconveyed in favour of Kumaraiah, Narasaiah and Hanumanthu, is abutting the bund and the canal whereas the land belonging to the petitioners herein is beyond the land of the aforesaid persons. Therefore, it cannot be said that the land of the petitioners is required by the respondents herein for public purpose. The aforesaid location of the lands was explained to this Court with reference to the blue print filed along with the Contempt Case. By looking to the map filed by the learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court is convinced that the land of the petitioners herein is beyond the land of Kumaraiah and others. This Court finds that no reasons are forthcoming as to how the land of the petitioners is required by the respondents herein for (the purpose of) public purpose as the land of the petitioners is far away from the canal.
7. The learned counsel for the Contempt petitioners herein invited my attention to the material papers filed on record wherein the Executive Engineer of the aforesaid Project has specifically informed the Collector that after digging the canal, on both sides, they have constructed the bund which is about 66 ft. in width. The said bund will take care of the future need of the canal and the land in question is no more required for the canal project.
8. After going through the aforesaid correspondence between the Collector and the Executive Engineer, this Court is fully satisfied that the land in question is no more required by the Government. Moreover, the Government has also passed a G.O., for reconveying the land to the original land owners. Therefore, there is no reason for the respondents herein in not reconveying the land to the petitioners herein. Basing upon the aforesaid G.O., and the law laid down in W.P.No. 11040 of 1992, this Court had directed the respondents herein to reconvey the land in favour of the petitioners herein, which was not done by the respondents herein; (in) not obeying the order of this Court by the respondents herein, is a clear case of Contempt of Courts Act for which the respondents herein had (sir. are) held liable.
9. From the material papers it is also evident that the Collector had directed the Joint Collector, Khammam to take necessary action in reconveying the land to the petitioners herein. Instead of obeying the order of the Collector, the Joint Collector preferred to file the review petition which was heard along with the Contempt Case. This Court fails to understand how the Joint Collector can take decision of his own in not conveying the land in favour of the petitioner in (sic. which is) violative of the orders passed by this Court as well as the Collector. This Court also further fails to understand as to what prompted him to file the present review petition.
10. The learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the Review Petitioners submitted at the Bar that once the land is acquired by the Government and the compensation is paid to the land owner, the land owner cannot claim, as a matter of right, to reconvey the land in his favour. The learned Government Pleader further submitted that if at all the land owner wants to make a representation for reconveyance of the land in his favour, he has to file the petition before the Government within a period of 12 years from the date of acquisition.
11. In order to substantiate the aforesaid provision of law, the learned Govt. Pleader for the Review petitioners relied upon a ruling reported in Kotaru Venkateszuarlu v. Government of A.P., 1994 (3) ALT 18 (NRC). I have gone through the said ruling and I hold that the period of limitation starts from the date of decision of relinquishment of the land by the Government in favour of the petitioners and not from the date of acquisition. Unless the decision of the Government is brought to the notice of the petitioners, the limitation will not start running against the petitioners.
12. Looking to the facts in the present case, I hold that the application made by the petitioners for reconveyance of the land in their favour is within limitation. Moreover, the Government does not require the land for which it was acquired and thus the right is accrued to the petitioners to file a petition to the respondents herein for reconveyance of the land.
13. The learned Government Pleader relied upon another decision (unreported) in W.P.No. 27439 of 1995 which was delivered by the learned Single Judge of this Court. I have gone through the said ruling and I hold that the said ruling is not applicable to the present set of facts.
14. The learned Government Pleader has not been able to satisfy this Court as to how Mr. Koganti Krishna Rao, s/o Narasimha Rao, Joint Collector, Khammam, took unilateral decision to file the review petition. The learned Government Pleader also has not been able to satisfy this Court as to how the Joint Collector is refusing to reconvey the land in favour of the petitioners by violating the order of the Government in G.O.Ms.No. 628, Revenue Department, dated 10-5-1975.
15. Considering the facts as discussed to above, this Court is fully convinced that the 7th respondent Mr. Koganti Krishna Rao, s/o Narasimha Rao has committed the act of Contempt of Court and he is liable to be punished under the Contempt of Courts Act.
16. However, this Court is of the view that the 7th respondent Mr. Koganti Krishna Rao be given one more opportunity to reconvey the land in favour of the petitioners within a period of six months from the date of this order for the price to be determined by him as per the law laid down in Mohd. Ismail and Anr. v. The District Collector, Krishna and Ors., 1990 (2) ALT 307. In case, the land is not reconveyed as directed to above (to) the petitioners herein, the petitioners herein are at liberty to move this Court for taking action under the Contempt of Courts Act against the 7th respondent herein Mr. Koganti Krishna Rao.
17. Under the circumstances described (to) above, Mr. Koganti Krishna Rao, Joint Collector, Khammam, is directed to pay costs of Rs. 2,000/- personally to the petitioners herein within a month from the date of this order.
18. With these directions, the Contempt Case as well as the Review Petition stand disposed of.