Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Tallapaka Savithriamma vs Manmohan Singh on 2 September, 2021
Author: Battu Devanand
Bench: Battu Devanand
1
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND
CONTEMPT CASE No.327 OF 2018
In
W.P.No.2695 of 2017
O R D E R:
This is a case of classic example of the lethargy of the bureaucrats in attending to the problems of the common public and their willful disobedient attitude towards the orders of the Constitutional Court.
2) This Contempt Case has been filed seeking to punish the respondents under the Contempt of Court Act, 1971, for willful disobedience of the order, dated 10.02.2017 in W.P.No.2695 of 2017.
3) Heard Mrs. C. Vani Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri P. Subash, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9; Sri N. Harinath, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.7; Sri Dometi Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.10 and Sri C. Sumon, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.11. Perused the entire material available on record.
4) All the respondents filed their counter-affidavits. 2
5) Having heard the submissions of the respective counsel and upon perusal of the material available on record, the following facts are noted:
i) The petitioner's husband (i.e.) late Tallapaka Venkataiah was granted D-form patta to an extent of Ac.3-00 cents in Survey No.943/A, Kanupur-II Village and he was issued pattadar pass book and title deed with Khatha No.200 and his name was entered in revenue records.
ii) After the death of said Venkataiah on 30.04.1998, the said land is under the possession of his spouse (i.e.) the petitioner herein.
iii) The Director, Welfare of Disabled and Senior Citizens, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, vide letter B.1/786/2014, dated 05.03.2015 and 29.05.2015 requested the District Collector, Nellore, to allot Government land for an extent of Ac.10-00 cents in and around District Headquarters, Nellore, for construction of Regional Center for National Institute of Mentally Handicapped.
iv) The District Administration identified the land to an extent of Ac.10-00 cents including Ac.3-00 cents of land of petitioner in Survey Nos.943/1 and 943/14, etc., of Kanupur Bit-II Village, Venkatachalam Mandal, for alienating 3 to Regional Center for National Institute for the empowerment of persons with intellectual disabled.
v) In view of the urgency, the Government vide G.O.Rt.No.565, Revenue (Assn-III/2) Department, dated 17.06.2015 accorded permission to the District Collector, Nellore to handover an advance possession of the land in favour of the Director, Welfare of Disabled and Senior Citizens, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad pending regular alienation proposals.
vi) The District Collector has issued orders in Rc.E.2/1348/2015, dated 23.06.2015 directing the Tahsildar, Venkatachalam to hand over the possession of the land.
vii) The Government vide G.O.Ms.No.240, Revenue (Assn-III/2) Department, dated 04.07.2015 ordered to alienate the said land to the Secretary, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India, for construction of the Composite Regional Center for persons with Disabilities on free of cost basis subject to certain conditions.
viii) The petitioner filed a complaint No.33051/2016/ B1 before the Honourable Lokayuktha against the action of the respondents and the District Collector, Nellore, 4 submitted a report, dated 10.12.2016 to the Lokayuktha, stating that the petitioner will be paid compensation along with other pattadars after due enquiry.
ix) The Tahsildar, Venkatachalam, issued an antedated notice, dated 05.11.2016 to the petitioner asking to submit explanation within 15 days as to why the patta granted to the petitioner shall not be cancelled, alleging that the petitioner is not cultivating the said land.
x) Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.2695 of 2017 before the High Court.
xi) The High Court by order, dated 10.02.2017, disposed of the writ petition and set aside the proceedings, dated 20.11.2016 issued by the Tahsildar, Venkatachalam, and the respondents are directed to pay compensation to the petitioner in terms of G.O.Ms.No.240, dated 04.07.2015. This court directed the said exercise shall be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
xii) The respondents failed to make payment of compensation to the petitioner in compliance of the order, dated 10.02.2017, accordingly, the petitioner filed the present contempt case on 07.02.2018.
5
xiii) This Court issued notices to the respondents in contempt case on 16.02.2018.
xiv) On 30.03.2021 the compensation amount has been credited to the bank account of the petitioner.
6) In the counter-affidavit filed by the 1st respondent, it is stated that vide Memo, dated 24.08.2017 requested the Director, Welfare of Disabled and Senior Citizens for payment of compensation to the assignees and they raised certain clarifications and the Government requested the District Collector, to submit a detailed report vide Memo, dated 06.03.2018. The District Collector vide letter, dated 14.03.2018 submitted his remarks. The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration vide letter, dated 26.04.2018 requested the Government to consider the proposal of the District Collector.
On 28.05.2018 the 1st respondent referred the file to the Revenue Department and Law Department for their remarks. On 20.06.2018 the Law Department returned the file. The Government issued Memo, dated 02.07.2018 to the District Collector for taking necessary action. On 22.07.2018 the Revenue Department referred the file to WC, DA & SC Department for payment of compensation to the petitioner. 6 The WC, DA & SC Department referred the file to the Finance Department on 01.04.2019 for their concurrence, on the proposal of the Director, WC, DA & SC Department to permit the Managing Director, A.P. Differently Abled and Senior Citizens Assistance Corporation, Vijayawada, to pay compensation to the petitioner.
On 25.04.2019 the Finance Department permitted to pay the compensation. On 31.05.2019 file returned to Revenue Department stating that permission was accorded to the Managing Director, A.P. Differently Abled and Senior Citizens Assistance Corporation, Vijayawada to deposit the compensation amount with the District Collector, Nellore to enable him to pay the compensation to the petitioner. On 04.12.2019, the Managing Director, A.P. Differently Abled and Senior Citizens Assistance Corporation, Vijayawada has released the amount to the PD account of the District Collector and requested to disburse the same to the petitioner.
The compensation amount has been released to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nellore vide letter, dated 02.03.2020 of the District Collector for payment to the petitioner. On 27.06.2020, the Revenue Divisional Officer raised the bill through the CFMS login and the same was 7 passed by the PAO on 06.07.2020. But, the bill is awaiting for funds clearance. The bill was cleared on 30.03.2021 and the amount has been credited to the account of the petitioner on 30.03.2021.
7) In the counter affidavits filed by the 2nd respondent, it is stated that the copy of the order in W.P.No.2695 of 2017 was received on 10.04.2017 and immediately he addressed a letter, dated 13.04.2017 to the District Collector, Nellore to take necessary action in the matter. He was relieved from the office of the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration on 14.10.2018 on being posted as Chief Secretary to Government.
8) In the counter-affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent, it is stated that after receipt of the order in W.P.No.2695 of 2017, he addressed a letter, dated 11.07.2017 to the Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue (Assn-III) Department, for allotment of funds to a tune of Rs.1,30,00,000/- towards payment of compensation to the petitioner including other assignees @ Rs.13,00,000/- per acre. The District Collector, Nellore also sent letters to the Government on 30.08.2017, 03.02.2018, 17.02.2018, 19.02.2018, 14.03.2018 and 21.03.2018. He was transferred as District Collector, West Godavari, Eluru and 8 relieved on 06.06.2019. He further stated that he has taken efforts for releasing funds from the Government to pay the compensation to the petitioner to comply with the orders of the High Court. There is no delay on his part as necessary proposals were submitted to the Government before filing of the contempt case.
9) In the counter filed by the 4th respondent, he reiterated the dates of correspondence of the District Administration with the Government and further stated that he was transferred as Joint Collector, Guntur District and relieved on 31.03.2018.
10) The 5th respondent filed counter-affidavit in the year, 2018, in which it is stated that already addressed letters for release of funds to enable to pay the compensation to the petitioner and orders relating to release of the required funds are awaited from the Government. Immediately soon after receipt of the funds, the compensation will be paid to the writ petitioner.
11) In the counters filed by the 6th respondent, the same averments in the counter of the 5th respondent are reiterated.
9
12) In the counters filed by the 7th respondent, it is stated that the Government of India has proposed to set up the Composite Regional Center for persons with Disabilities at Nellore in the State of Andhra Pradesh to provide medical, therapeutic and rehabilitation services to the persons with Disabilities and also to train manpower in these areas. The District Administration, SPSR Nellore District, has requested to provide suitable land for establishing of the Center. The District Administration has allotted Ac.10-00 cents of land in Kanupur-II Village of Venkatachalam Mandal, the same was taken over by this respondent on 28.07.2015. As per the Memorandum of Understanding, this respondent is responsible for construction of buildings in the allotted land at their own cost and the 7th respondent is not responsible for payment of compensation to the land owner/petitioner and it is the state Government, who has to pay the compensation in question.
13) On 24.03.2021, when this contempt case is listed for hearing, Sri P. Subash, learned counsel sought two weeks time to file his Vakalat and to get instructions about the status of the payment.
14) On 07.04.2021 learned counsel appearing for the Revenue Department Officers, brought to the notice of this 10 Court that order of this Court is complied with on 30.03.2021. The 6th respondent filed additional reply affidavit stating that the order of the Court has been complied with by making payment to the petitioner on 30.03.2021. This Court acknowledges the effort of Sri P. Subash, learned counsel to implement the order and we are placing our appreciation on record.
15) Upon perusal of the affidavit of the 6th respondent, it is clear that even after filing of the contempt case in the year, 2018, the respondents have not chosen to comply with the order of the Court for four years. This Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to punish the respondents for willful disobedience of the order of the Court and accordingly, issued notices in Form-I to the respondent Nos.1 to 4.
16) On 22.06.2021 the respondent Nos.1 to 4 appeared before the Court and explained their role in implementing the orders.
17) It is noticed that the 3rd respondent transferred from the post of District Collector, Nellore in the month of June, 2019 and the order of the Court is not complied with till 30.03.2021. The Officers, who worked as District Collectors till 30.03.2021 are necessary parties to the 11 contempt case and accordingly, this Court directed the Registry to implead the Officers, who worked from the month of June, 2019 to March, 2021 as respondent Nos.8 and 9 and issue notices to them.
18) The Court also noticed from the material available on record that the 5th respondent submitted bills to PAO on 06.07.2020, but, they are not cleared till 30.03.2021. There is a delay of Nine months in clearing the bills to make payment of compensation to the petitioner. As such, this Court felt that it is necessary to implead the Officers, who worked as Principal Secretary to Finance during the period from 06.07.2020 to 30.03.2021 and directed the Registry to ascertain the names of the concerned officers and implead them as respondents and issue notices to them.
19) Accordingly, respondent Nos.8 to 11 are impleaded as respondents in this contempt case.
20) The 8th respondent in his counter submits that he assumed charge as District Collector, Nellore on 06.06.2019. On 19.09.2019, the Managing Director, A.P. Differently Abled and Senior Citizens Assistance Corporation, Vijayawada, has sanctioned an amount of Rs.1,30,00,000/- in favour of District Collector, Nellore for payment of compensation to the land assignees @ Rs.13,00,000/- per 12 acre and requested to submit details of PD account of Collector's Office for transferring the said funds. Vide letter, dated 24.09.2019 he furnished the particulars of the PD account for release of the funds. On 04.11.2019 funds were released to the said PD account. The compensation amount of Rs.1,30,00,000/- has been released to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nellore vide SPSR Nellore Collector's letter Rc.E2/1348/2015, dated 02.03.2020 and requested to take necessary action for payment of amount to the petitioner. A reminder was sent to the Revenue Divisional Officer on 26.05.2020. The Revenue Divisional Officer has raised the bill through CFMS login on 27.06.2020 and the same was passed by PAO on 06.07.2020, but, the bill was awaiting for funds clearance. He was transferred from the post of District Collector, Nellore and he relieved on 16.07.2020. He contended that while he was discharging duties as Collector, he has taken full efforts for releasing of funds from the Government to make payment to the petitioner.
21) The 9th respondent in his counter, it is stated that he assumed charge as District Collector, SPSR Nellore on 16.07.2020. When urgent action had to be taken in relation to COVID-19 pandemic situation and the necessary action has already been taken for payment of compensation to the petitioner from the administration side. The bill was 13 awaiting for funds clearance posted in CFMS as on 06.07.2020. He addressed a letter, dated 27.03.2021 to the Principal Secretary and Special Secretary to the Finance Department to clear the amount posted in CFMS to enable to make payment of compensation to the petitioner. Accordingly, the bill was cleared and payment was made on 30.03.2021 to the petitioner. It was clearly mentioned in the affidavit that the file was cleared from the District Collectorate prior to assuming charge by him as District Collector and it has to be cleared by the Finance Department.
22) In the counter affidavit filed by the 10th respondent, it is contended that the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nellore submitted bill on 08.05.2020 and the same was returned by PAO, Nellore on 11.05.2020, as the amount was deposited by the Revenue Divisional Officer under wrong head of account. The Revenue Divisional Officer has resubmitted the bill after rectification of the head of account on 27.06.2020. The PAO, Nellore has verified and approved the bill for clearance on 06.07.2020. The bill was paid to the petitioner on 30.03.2021.
23) It is further contended by the 10th respondent that he was not a party to W.P.No.2695 of 2017 and the 14 C.C.No.327 of 2018 and there is no any specific order to this respondent for the clearance of bills within define period and that the delay in clearance of bills of the petitioner was purely administrative in nature and not with any malafide intention and impleading him as 10th respondent by suo moto in the Contempt Case may not be proper and warranted.
24) The 10th respondent finally submitted that the concerned bills were passed in routine course and paid the compensation amount to the petitioner on 30.03.2021.
25) In the counter filed by the 11th respondent, who worked as Principal Secretary to Finance (FAC) for the period from 16.02.2021 to 18.03.2021 has reiterated the same contentions made in the counter of the 10th respondent.
26) Upon perusal of the counter-affidavits filed by all the respondents and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that though the land of the petitioner to an extent of Ac.3-00 cents was taken by the Revenue Department as advance possession and handed over the same to the 7th respondent on 28.07.2015 and in spite of specific direction of this Court by order, dated 10.02.2017 to pay compensation to the petitioner, within a period of three months, till 30.03.2021 the payment of 15 compensation is not made to the petitioner. Though several contentions are made by the respondents in their counter- affidavits one thing is clear that due to the inaction of the respondents in taking proper steps to comply with the order of the Court, the petitioner sustained irreparable loss and hardships for four years.
27) Now, basing on the material available on record, this Court has to determine the liability of each respondent in not implementing the order of the Court and who are guilty of Contempt of Court.
28) On careful examination of the facts of the case, in the opinion of the Court, there is no role on the part of the 7th respondent to make payment towards compensation to the petitioner and as such, the contempt case has to be dismissed against the 7th respondent.
29) With regard to the 1st respondent, who is the Principal Secretary to the Revenue Department, under whose instructions, the advance possession of the land was taken from the petitioner and as such, he is responsible to see that the order of the Court has to be complied with in true spirit and the petitioner has to be paid compensation as per the time stipulated by the Court. The reasons stated in his counter are not justified and not acceptable to the Court. 16 Accordingly, this Court holds that the 1 st respondent is found guilty of the contempt of Court.
30) The 2nd respondent is the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration. In the present issue except forwarding the reports received from the District Administration to the Principal Secretary to the Revenue Department and forwarding the instructions of the Principal Secretary to the District Administration, he has no role to make payment to the petitioner. It appears this respondent discharged his duty by giving timely instructions to the concerned after receipt of Court order. As such, in the opinion of the Court, he is not found guilty of the Contempt of Court and accordingly, the contempt case has to be closed against this respondent.
31) With regard to the 3rd respondent during the period, he discharged duties as District Collector, Nellore, though he made some efforts for release of the funds to make payment to the petitioner, the order of the Court is not complied within the time stipulated. Making some correspondence with some officers is not implementing the Court order. There shall be substantial compliance. Accordingly, this Court holds that this respondent is found guilty of the contempt of Court.
17
32) With regard to 4th respondent, he being the Joint Collector, he has to discharge his duties as per the instructions of the District Collector and he is not having any independent role in the present issue. As such, he is not found guilty of contempt of Court.
33) With regard to the 5th respondent though she was released funds by the District Collector on 02.03.2020, this respondent submitted bill to the PAO only on 08.05.2020 under wrong head of account due to that reason, the bill was returned by PAO on 11.05.2020 and he resubmitted the same on 27.06.2020. It appears there is negligence on the part of this respondent in making payment of compensation to the petitioner by implementing the order of the Court. As such, this Court holds that this respondent is found guilty of contempt of Court.
34) It is submitted by Ms.Haritha, Revenue Divisional Officer, Nellore, who is 5th respondent herein that she was transferred from the post of Revenue Divisional Officer, Nellore on 29.08.2018. During her tenure, the funds are not transferred to the account of Revenue Divisional Officer. In her place, one Mr.Hussain Saheb was appointed as Revenue Divisional Officer, Nellore. As such, she represents that after receipt of the funds from the District Collector, the delay 18 caused in submitting the bills to the PAO and there is no fault on her part, and requested the Court to close the contempt case.
35) This Court accepting the submission of the 5th respondent and accordingly the Contempt Case can be closed against the 5th respondent.
36) With regard to 6th respondent in the opinion of the Court, he is not having much role in implementing the orders of the Court except to follow the instructions of his superior officers being the Tashildar cadre officer. As such, this Court holds that this respondent is not found guilty of the contempt of Court and the contempt case can be closed against this respondent.
37) With regard to 8th respondent, this Officer assumed charge as District Collector on 06.06.2019. On 19.09.2019 the Managing Director of A.P. Differently Abled and Senior Citizens Assistance Corporation, Vijayawada, requested to furnish the particulars of PD account of Collector's Office to transfer the compensation amount. On 24.09.2019 this respondent furnished the particulars of the PD account. On 04.12.2019 the funds were released to the PD account. This respondent released the said amount to 19 the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nellore on 02.03.2020. He reminded the Revenue Divisional Officer on 26.05.2020. He was transferred on 15.07.2020 and relieved on 16.07.2020. There is a delay of three months on the part of this respondent in releasing the funds received through PD account to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nellore. As such, he is found guilty of the contempt of Court.
38) With regard to 9th respondent, he joined as Collector on 16.07.2020. Before that date the bill was awaiting for funds clearance posted in CFMS as on 06.07.2020. But, till 27.03.2021 he did not choose to take any steps for not clearance by addressing letters to the Finance Department. Only on 27.03.2021, he sent a letter to the Principal Secretary to Finance Department and Special Secretary to Finance Department to clear the said amount posted in CFMS. As such, this Court holds that this respondent is found guilty of contempt of Court.
39) With regard to 11th respondent, this Officer held the post of Principal Secretary to Finance Department, Full Additional Charge from the period from 16.02.2020 to 18.03.2020 for a limited period of few days. As such, this Court holds that this respondent is not found guilty of the 20 contempt of Court and the same can be closed against this respondent.
40) With regard to 10th respondent, this Officer worked as Principal Secretary to the Finance Department from 06.07.2020 to 15.02.2021 and from 19.03.2021 to till the payment of compensation to the petitioner (i.e) 30.03.2021. Upon perusal of the averments made in the counter filed by this respondent and the tone and tenor of the language used by this Officer in his counter, in the opinion of the Court, this Officer is under the impression that he need not implement the orders of the Court unless specific direction issued to him by the Court.
41) The rectified bill was submitted by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nellore to the PAO on 27.06.2020 and the same was approved on 06.07.2020, but, the payment was not done till 30.03.2021. It appears there is a delay in paying the compensation to the petitioner for a period of Nine months from the clearance of the bill on 06.07.2020 to 30.03.2021. As a Principal Secretary to the Finance Department, this Officer is responsible and accountable for the delay of Nine months in not making payment of compensation to the petitioner. As such, he is found guilty of the contempt of Court.
21
42) For the reasons stated above, in the considered opinion of the Court, there is willful disobedience on the part of the respondent Nos.1, 3, 8, 9 and 10 and accordingly this Court holds that they are found guilty of Contempt of Court.
43) When the Court asked the respondent Nos.1, 3, 8, 9 and 10 as to why they should not be punished for non- compliance of the order of this Court in true spirit, they tendered their unconditional apology.
44) In the opinion of the Court, if any lenient view is taken against such type of officers, who are not implementing the orders of this Court, years together, and implementing Court orders only after directing their appearance before the Court, in the opinion of this Court, it will send wrong message to such type of Government officers.
45) A Four Judge bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Mulkh Raj vs. State of Punjab 1
made the following
observations which would throw considerable light on the question before us:
"Apology is an act of contrition. Unless apology is offered at the earliest opportunity and in good grace apology is shorn of penitence. If apology is offered at 1 1972(3) SCC 839 22 a time when the contemnor finds that the Court is going to impose punishment it ceases to be an apology and it becomes an act of a cringing coward. The High Court was right in not taking any notice of the appellants expression of apology "without any further word". The High Court correctly said that acceptance of apology in the case would amount to allow the offender to go way with impunity after having committed gross contempt."
46) In the facts and circumstances of the case, in the considered opinion of this Court, the unconditional apology tendered by the respondent Nos.1, 3, 8, 9 and 10, is not acceptable to the Court as it is not bonafide.
47) Therefore, this Court holds that the respondent Nos.1, 3, 8, 9 and 10 are liable for punishment under the provisions of Contempt of Court Act, 1971.
48) Accordingly, the Contempt Case is allowed against the respondent Nos.1, 3, 8, 9 and 10 and passes the following order:
(a) The Contemnor No.1/1st Respondent is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for four (04) weeks and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only), in default, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for seven (07) days.23
(b) The Contemnor No.3/3rd Respondent is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two (02) weeks and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only), in default, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for two (03) days.
(c) The Contemnor No.8/8th Respondent is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only), in default, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for seven (07) days.
(d) The Contemnor No.9/9th Respondent is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only), in default, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for seven (07) days.
(e) The Contemnor No.10/10th Respondent is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only), in default, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for seven (07) days.
(f) This Court by order, dated 17.03.2017, directed the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioner within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
The compensation was paid to the petitioner only on 24 30.03.2021. This Court already noticed that the land was taken away by advance compensation from the petitioner in the year 2015. So, from the year 2015, the petitioner, who is 62 years old widow is facing serious hardships for her survival at this old age. Taking into account the hardships being faced by the petitioner, due to willful disobedience of the Court order by contemnors, in the considered opinion of the Court it is appropriate to award costs in favour of the petitioner to meet the ends of justice.
g) Accordingly, this Court by exercising powers vested under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, directing the State Government to pay Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) towards costs to the petitioner and the State Government shall pay that amount at first instance. The public exchequer should not be burdened by the payment of costs, according to this Court. The costs paid should be recovered from the erring officers by the State Government.
49) At the request of the counsels appearing for the Contemnors, the sentence is suspended for a period of four weeks.
50) The Contempt Case is closed against the respondent Nos.2, 4, 5, 6 and 11.
25
51) The Contempt Case is dismissed against the respondent No.7.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this case shall stand closed.
__________________________ JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND Dt.02.09.2021 PGR Note: Registry is directed to communicate a copy of this order to the Chief Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, to implement the direction mentioned at para No.48 (g). 26 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND CONTEMPT CASE No.327 OF 2018 In W.P.No.2695 of 2017 Dt: 02.09.2021 PGR