Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
K. Sitarama Reddy vs Ajay Jain, District Collector on 13 December, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2003(1)ALD688
JUDGMENT P.S. Narayana, J.
1. This Contempt Case is filed under Sections 10 and 12 of Contempt of Courts Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for the purpose of convenience) praying this Court to punish the respondent who is alleged to have committed the contempt of Court of the order dated 21-11-2001 made by this Court in Writ Appeal No. 1514 of 2001 and for such other suitable orders.
2. The facts of the case in nut-shell can be stated as hereunder:
3. The petitioner is the absolute owner of an extent of four acres of land in Survey No-233/24 situate in Nizampet Village, Qutubullapur Mandal, Rangareddy District and he has been in possession of the said property. The petitioner was issued patta certificate in Form-G of the Laoni Rules, 1950 on 15-8-1961 and his pattadar rights were recognised and implemented in the revenue and land records and he was issued pattadar pass book and title deeds. When the petitioner was about to sell this land, he came to know that the registration authorities were directed not to entertain the sale deeds by the Laoni patta certificate holders and consequent thereupon the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 13114 of 2000 contending that since Form-G Certificate was issued after conduct of auction and after payment of bid amount the certificate has to be retained as a sale certificate and hence no restrain on alienation can be placed on the petitioner and the learned Single Judge allowed the said writ petition.
4. The respondents had carried the matter in appeal in W.A. No. 1514 of 2001 and the Division Bench of this Court by an order dated 21-11-2001 directed the petitioner to submit a representation to the respondents seeking permission to sell the land and the respondents were directed to pass orders on the representation in terms of Sections 48 and 58-A of A.P.(Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 30-11-2001 to the respondent seeking permission to alienate the land. It was also stated by the petitioner that this Court had fixed time limit of eight weeks for consideration and disposal of his representation seeking permission for alienating his patta land and though time had lapsed there was no action on the part of the respondent and inaction on the part of the respondent in not passing an order on his representation will amount to wilful disobedience of the orders made by this Court and in the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner had filed the present contempt case.
5. On 29-8-2002 this Court issued notice before admission. The learned Government Pleader for Revenue had taken notice on behalf of the respondent. This Court had stated that pendency of the contempt case does not preclude the respondent-contemnor for complying with the orders of this Court.
6. The respondent filed a counter-affidavit taking a stand that in pursuance of the orders of this Court action had been initiated and notices were issued to the petitioner to file documentary evidence in support of his claim. It was also pleaded that the respondent had examined the entire record and passed a detailed order dated 21-9-2002 and the said order also was enclosed. It was further pleaded that the respondent is having highest regard and respect towards the orders of this Court and in fact being a public servant he is duty bound to implement the orders of the Court and he had not violated the orders of this Court at any point of time. It was further pleaded that the records pertaining to the present case being very old there is an administrative delay in passing the orders and the respondent also had tendered an unconditional apology in this regard,
7. On 1-10-2002 the Contempt Case was admitted and notice was issued in Form No. 1 to the respondent for his appearance before this Court on 30-10-2002 at 10-30 a.m. But however, this Court reiterated that pendency of this Contempt Case does not preclude the District Collector to pass orders in accordance with the order of the Division Bench on the application/ representation made by the petitioner dated 30-11-2001. On 30-10-2002 this Court issued a bailable warrant for appearance of the Contemnor before this Court on 5-11-2002 at 10-30 a.m. It is relevant to note that on behalf of the respondent an application C.A.1216 of 2002 was filed in C.C.No.749 of 2002 to dispense with his presence on 30-10-2002 undertaking to be present before this Court on any date fixed by this Court. It was further stated that the Honourable Deputy Prime Minister of India was visiting Hyderabad on 30-10-2002 and during the visit of the Honourable Deputy Prime Minister of India the Collector had to attend the protocol duty organizing the other departmental functions and hence he prayed this Court to dispense with his presence. However, as already observed supra on 30-10-2002 bailable warrant was issued for appearance of the contemnor before the Court on 5-11-2002, The respondent also filed another application C.A. No. 1256 of 2002 to recall the bailable warrant narrating the circumstances under which the respondent was unable to attend this Court and this Court on 15-11-2002 had recalled the said warrant. In view of the orders passed by this Court the respondent had passed an order in file No. E.5/4681/2001 dated 28-10-2002 rejecting the request of the petitioner for grant of permission for alienating the land to an extent of four acres in S. No. 233/24 situate in Nizampet Village in favour of third parties and in the said order it was also observed that the orders passed earlier on 21-9-2002 were hereby cancelled.
8. Sri V. Venkataramana, learned Counsel representing the petitioner had drawn our attention to the order passed by the Division Bench and had contended that the order of rejection made by the respondent is totally on unsustainable grounds. The learned Counsel also had drawn our attention to what had been observed by the Division Bench relating to the law declared by the Supreme Court in the case reported in Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Gudepu Sailoo, . The learned Counsel also had commented that if the observations made by the respondent are carefully scrutinized it would reveal that the petitioner is thrown to a much worse position than he was originally placed while setting the law in motion by filing the writ petition. The learned Counsel no doubt had made certain submissions touching the merits of the matter and made an attempt to convince this Court that the reasons recorded are wholly unsustainable.
9. Sri P. Rajagopal Rao, learned Government Pleader for Revenue, on the other hand, had drawn the attention of this Court to the nature of the order which had been passed by the respondent. The learned Counsel also contended that the order passed by the Division Bench in the Writ Appeal No. 1514 of 2001 on 21-11-2001 had been duly complied with and hence no contempt has been committed by the respondent and even on the aspect of inaction the learned Counsel contended that it was only due to the reasons explained by the respondent and there is no wilful or deliberate violation of the orders of this Court.
10. Heard both the Counsel at length and perused the records.
11. The Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 1514 of 2001 vide order dated 21-11-2001 had made the following the order:
"Accordingly, we dispose of the writ appeal giving liberty to the respondent/writ petitioner to make an application to the District Collector, Rangareddy District seeking permission/sanction for alienating the land in question. On such application being filed, the District Collector, fourth respondent herein, shall pass appropriate orders keeping in view the Laoni Rules and the provisions of Sections 58 and 58-A of the A.P. (Telangana Area ) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli. Such an exercise may be completed within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of the application from the respondent-writ petitioner seeking sanction to alienate the land.
We make it clear that in accordance with the law declared by the Supreme Court in Gudepu Sailoo's case, the land tinder the Laoni Rules can be alienated only on obtaining prior sanction of the competent authority viz., the District Collector."
It is no doubt true that there was some delay on the part of the respondent in making an order on the representation made by the petitioner. But however it was explained that this delay is due to administrative reasons and it is neither wilful nor deliberate.
12. The controversial question which had been argued by both the Counsel at length is that though an order of rejection was made by the respondent the approach or the reasons recorded by the respondent are totally unsustainable and in fact contrary to the letter and spirit of the order made by the Division Bench referred to supra. We have perused the order dated 28-10-2002 passed by the respondent and no doubt several reasons touching the merits of the mater had been elaborately discussed. In D.L.M.M. Sharma v. C.V.S.K. Sarma LAS, Secretary to Government of Andhra Pradesh, , it was held that where a contempt application is filed alleging disobedience of the orders of this Court regarding fixation of seniority and when the respondents had complied with the said order, the petitioner cannot plead non-compliance and the contempt application is liable to be rejected. In Contempt Case No. 617 of 2002 vide judgment dated 10-7-2002 this Court had observed that extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court in terms of the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act is quasi-criminal and as such standard of proof required is that of a criminal proceeding and the breach shall have to be established beyond all reasonable doubt. The same view was expressed in the decision in J.S. Parihar v. Ganpat Duggar, , Anil Ratan Sarkar v. Hirak Ghosh, , Mrityunjoy Dass v. Sayed Hasibur Rahaman, (2001) 3 SCC 739, Chhotu Ram y. Urvashi Gulati, .
13. In Parihar case (supra) it was held by the Apex Court that once there is an order passed by the Government on the basis of the directions issued by the Court there arises a fresh cause of action to seek redressal in an appropriate forum. In Lalith Mathur v. L.Maheswar Rao, , it was held that where the High Court in a writ petition had issued a direction to consider the representation by the State Government and the direction was carried out by the State Government which had considered and thereafter rejected representation on merits, instead of challenging the order in a fresh writ petition the party had taken a recourse to contempt proceedings which did not allow as the order had already been complied with by the State Government, which had considered the representation and rejected it on merits.
14. In view of the legal position discussed supra, we are unable to agree with the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner especially in view of the limitations of this Court while exercising jurisdiction under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. Even on the aspect of delay we are of the opinion that it is not deliberate or wilful on the part of the respondent in complying with the order of the Division Bench referred to supra.
15. In the light of the stand taken by the respondent and also the order made by the respondent on 28-10-2002 we are of the considered opinion that the contempt case is devoid of merits and accordingly the same is dismissed. But however in the facts and circumstances of the case this Court makes no order as to costs.