Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
M. Subba Reddy, vs M. Subba Reddy, on 21 March, 2022
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
CONTEMPT CASE NO.2169 OF 2021
ORDER:
This contempt case is filed under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, by the petitioners, for wilful disobedience of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.11590 of 2021 dated 22.06.2021, whereunder this Court issued a direction, which is as follows:
"At the stage of admission, learned counsel for the petitioners Sri Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava and the learned Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration appearing for the respondents fairly conceded that the issue involved in this petition is squarely covered by the order dated 29.08.2019 passed by Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.147 of 2019.
Since the dispute is covered by the order dated 29.08.2019 passed by Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.147 of 2019, this Writ Petition is disposed of, in terms of the said order. No costs.
Registry is directed to attach a copy of order dated 29.08.2019 passed by Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.147 of 2019 to this order"
After issuing the above direction, the fourth respondent/ Tahsildar is required to comply with the above direction. But, instead of complying with the direction issued by this Court, an Endorsement in ROC.A/126/2021 dated 31.12.2021 was issued by the Tahsildar, raising a specific contention that the land in an extent of Ac.2-70 cents in Sy.No.1055/3 was assigned in his favour vide DKT patta number AM.No.54/4/400 dated 15.12.1990 (i.e. Fasli 1400) under category of ex-serviceman. But, as seen from records, no such file was available and as per entries made in DKT Register for the Fasli 1400 contains entries only from Patta No.1 to 13 only. Hence, the DKT patta filed by the petitioner i.e. 2 MSM,J CC No.2169 of 2021 AM.No.54/4/1400 dated 15.12.2000 is found as bogus one and created for the purpose of grabbing the assigned land of third parties and thereby, it is not genuine. Hence, the request of the petitioner for deletion of the subject land from the list of prohibited properties was rejected.
It is contended that, a clear direction was issued to the Respondent No.4/Contemnor to process registration of the document that is presented by the writ petitioner. Despite the direction issued by this Court the Respondent No.4/contemnor did not bother to comply with the said direction and it is a clear intentional violation of the direction issued by this Court and consequently the action of Respondent No.4 prima facie indicates that they disobeyed the order of this Court wantonly, pleading lame excuses without any basis and requested to punish the contemnor/Tahsildar.
Respondent No.4/Tahsildar/contemnor filed counter affidavit denying material allegations, inter alia, contending that the Tahsildar never disobeyed the order of this Court, while stating that, as per office records, the DKT Register for Fasli 1400 contains entries only from Patta Nos.1 to 13 only. Hence, DKT patta mentioned by the petitioner i.e. AM.No.54/4/1400 dated 19.12.2000 is a bogus one and created for the purpose of grabbing the assigned land of third parties. It is also submitted that the consequent document ie., the said NOC said to be issued by the then Mandal Revenue Officer in Roc.A/670/2008 dated 10.10.2008 is also invalid. As per the office Landdistribution Register for the year 2008, the number 670 was allotted to CM.Cell peshi petition of T.Eswaramma of Komativanicheruvu who has 3 MSM,J CC No.2169 of 2021 requested for allotment of house site. Hence the above NOC is also bogus and created for the purpose of Registration, indulging in fraud by the petitioners. Further their names were not mutated in any Revenue Records such as ROR records and adangals. In view of the above position it is beyond any reasonable doubt that the documents filed by the petitioners are bogus and created for the purpose of grabbing the assigned land belongs to third parties. In view of the above fraud played by the respondents, for the purpose of registration of the land, the registered document filed by the Respondents is invalid. In view of the above position, after verifying all relevant records, and inspection of the land, the 4th respondent/Tahsildar, Madanapalle has rejected the plea of the petitioners to delete the land from the prohibitory list through an endorsement issued to them vide reference No.Roc 1/126 /2021 Dated 31.12.2021, communicated through RPAD and received by the petitioner on 05.01.2022. Since the writ petitioners have filed bogus documents before this Court as submitted supra, both of them are punishable under the appropriate sections of the law in order to avoid such false petitions before this Court by misusing Article 226 of Constitution of India. Hence, it is contended that the petitioner after receiving the endorsement issued by the 4th respondent has filed the contempt case without any merits and grounds.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration on behalf of Respondent No.4.
4
MSM,J CC No.2169 of 2021 The main contention of the petitioners is that, patta was granted in favour of these petitioners under ex-servicemen quota and later, „No Objection Certificate‟ was issued for sale of the property and sold an extent of Ac.1-57 cents in Sy.No.1055/3 at Basinikonda Revenue Village vide Doc.No.1047/2009 dated 20.02.2009. Curiously, Respondent No.4/contemnor contended that DKT patta and „No Objection Certificate‟ are also fake, thereby, the order need not be implemented and request for deletion of the property from the prohibited properties list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, is illegal.
Respondent No.4 questioned about genuineness of the documents, more particularly, assignment and „No Objection Certificate‟ issued in favour of this petitioner for the first time in contempt case, challenging the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.11590 of 2021 dated 22.06.2021. When once the order has attained finality, it is for Respondent No.4/Contemnor to implement the order. Instead of implementing the order in W.P.No.11590 of 2021 dated 22.06.2021 passed by this Court, the contemnor invented a different story that the documents are not genuine. Such plea is not open to the contemnor in a contempt case, as the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.11590 of 2021 has attained finality, since no appeal is preferred, thereby, Respondent No.4/contemnor is not entitled to raise such plea and issue an Endorsement in ROC.A/126/2021 dated 31.12.2021, in violation of the direction issued by this Court, deliberately knowing the ill-consequences that flow from such violation, as Respondent No.4/contemnor did not dispute the DKT patta granted in favour of this petitioner, so also „No Objection Certificate‟ at the earliest i.e. 5 MSM,J CC No.2169 of 2021 at the time of passing the order by this Court. Therefore, issue of Endorsement in ROC.A/126/2021 dated 31.12.2021 by Respondent No.4/contemnor is clear intentional and deliberate violation of the order passed by this Court.
The Court can impose penalty against a person who wilfully disobeyed the order of this Court. In the present case, a direction was issued to Respondent No.4 to receive and register the document presented by the petitioner in accordance with law, within specified time. But, Respondent No.4 did not obey the direction issued by this Court.
In Ashok Paper Kamgar Union and Ors. vs. Dharam Godha And Ors1, the Supreme Court examined the provision of Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 that defines the term civil contempt and held that the term „Willful‟ under Section 2(b) means an act or omission which is done voluntarily and intentionally and with the specific intent to do something while the law forbids or with the specific intent to fail to do something the law requires to be done, that is to say with bad purpose either to disobey or to disregard the law. It signifies a deliberate action done with evil intent or with a bad motive or purpose. Therefore, in order to constitute contempt the order of the Court must be of such a nature which is capable of execution by the person charged in normal circumstances. It should not require any extra ordinary effort nor should be dependent, either wholly or in part, upon any act or omission of a third party for its compliance. This has to be judged having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. 1 AIR 2004 SC 105 6 MSM,J CC No.2169 of 2021 In A. Badhrachalam vs. Dr. K. Sathyagopal2, the Madras High Court made an attempt to decide the issue as to what amounts to contempt where the contempt was filed beyond the limitation of one year. But the Court noted the principle laid down in Morris vs. Crown Office3, where Lord Dening wrote that, "Of all the places where law and order must be maintained, it is here in these Courts. The Courts of Justice must not be deflected or interfered with. Those who strike at it, strike at the very foundations of our society." "To maintain Law and Order, the Judges have, and must have, power at once to deal with those who offend against it" " It is a great power - a power instantly to imprison a person without trial - but it is a necessary power".
Article 215 of the Constitution of India empowers every High Court to punish contempt of Court subordinate to it, but Contempt of Courts Act lays down how that power is to be exercised. Article 215 of the Constitution of India and provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act have to be read together. The Hon‟ble Apex Court has emphasized that Section 20 applies to civil and criminal contempts and would also apply to the contempt committed on the face of High Court or the Supreme Court or even Subordinate Courts.
In view of the law declared by the Hon‟ble Apex Court and various Courts referred above, I find that Respondent No.4/ Contemnor is guilty of contempt of court, as defined under Section 2(d) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1926 and liable for punishment under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 2 C.C.No.2497 of 2018 dated 07.02.2019 3 (1970) 1 All ER 1079 at 1081 7 MSM,J CC No.2169 of 2021 1926, as the contemnor deliberately and wilfully violated the order of this Court.
In the result, contempt case is disposed of, sentencing Respondent No.4/Tahsildar to undergo imprisonment for a period of two (2) months and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousands only) each, for violating the order of this Court wilfully. In default of payment of fine, Respondent No.4/Tahsildar shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The said amount of fine be borne by the contemnor from his/her pocket, but not from the public exchequer.
_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Date:21.03.2022 SP After dictating the above order, learned counsel for Respondent No.4 - Tahsildar requested this Court to suspend the above order, so as to enable him to prefer an appeal.
At request of the learned counsel for Respondent No.4, the above order is suspended for a period of three (3) weeks 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 No.4/Contemnor shall surrender before Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Andhra Pradesh on 11.04.2022 before 05.00 p.m to undergo sentence.
_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY