The High Court examined a suo moto petition regarding alleged contempt by a Tahsildar who resumed assigned land without following the prescribed procedure and disobeing earlier court orders.
Fine of Rs. 2,000/- imposed on the contemnor; threat of two months simple imprisonment in default.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY SUO MOTO CONTEMPT CASE NO.354 OF 2020
ORDER :
This suo moto contempt case is taken by this Court for violation of the order of this Court in W.P.No.3285 of 2020 dated 13.02.2020.
One Lingamaneni Vijaya Lakshmi filed W.P.No.3285 of 2020
claiming the following relief:
“To issue an appropriate order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the order passed by the 4th respondent in R.C.B/65/2020 dated 26.01.2020 whereby resumed the land assigned to me in an extent of Ac.1-85 cents situated in Sy.No.745-4 of Musunuru Village and Mandal, Krishna District and cancelled the assignment patta as illegal, arbitrary, non-application of mind ultravirus against to the principles of natural justice apart from being violative of Article 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequentially, set aside the same.”
Smt. Lingamaneni Vijaya Lakshmi filed earlier W.P.No.21220 of 2019 questioning the highhanded act of the contemnor/Tahsildar and other officials of the State attempting to dispossess the writ petitioner. This Court by order dated 30.12.2019, issued the following direction:
“Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to follow due process of law if they propose to resume the assigned land from the petitioner. Till such exercise is undertaken, the respondents shall not take any coercive steps to evict the petitioner from her assigned land. No costs.”
Subsequent to order in W.P.No.21220 of 2019, the
contemnor issued notice dated 22.01.2020 in Rc.B/34/2020,
which reads as follows:
“Smt. Lingamaneni Vijaya Lakshmi w/o Radha Krishna, residents of Musunuru Village of Musunuru Mandal have filed writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court vide W.P.No.21220 of 2019. Requesting to stop the resumption of the assigned land in Ac.1.85 cents and R.S.No.745/4 of Musunuru Village of Musunuru Mandal,
MSM,J CC_354_2020
2
Krishna District. The Hon’ble High Court passed orders as a sequel interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. Hence you are requested to attend this office on 25.01.2020 at 11.00 a.m. at violation as per Act 9/77 (POT) to explain the reasons before the Tahsildar Musunuru along with documentary evidences, if any without fail, failing which further action will be taken on the material available on record.”
(Extracted)
A bare look at the notice, the writ petitioner was called upon to attend the office on 25.01.2020 at 11.00 a.m. to explain the reasons before the Tahsildar for violation of provisions of Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (Act No. 9 of 1977) along with documentary evidence.
In the entire notice, no details were disclosed as to the violation except using a word “violation as per Act 9/77 (POT)”. The writ petitioner submitted representation dated 25.01.2020, which is as follows:
“I am in receipt of notice vide Rc.B/34/2020 dated 22.01.2020 directing me to attend your office on 25.10.2020 at 11.00 a.m. at violations as per Act.9/77 (POT) to explain the reasons before your kind authority.
In this regard I submit that I have not violated Ac.9/77 (POT). I am herewith enclosing the copies of 1.Assignement Patta, 2. Pattadar Pass Book and adangal, 3. Certificate issued by Bank and 4. Copy of the order of the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.P.No.21220/2019. The Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh pleased to direct not to take any coercive steps to evict me from my assigned land till due process of law is followed.
I request your kind authority not to evict me from the assigned land as the same is the only source of my livelihood and do justice to me.”
(Extracted)
On receipt of the representation dated 25.01.2020 from the petitioner, on the next day i.e. on 26.01.2020 the contemnor passed an order in Rc.B./65/2020. In the said order, the contemnor admitted about the issue of D-Form patta, but the petitioner failed to bring the land under cultivation within three (3) years from the date of assignment. The order also disclosed that as
MSM,J CC_354_2020
3
per the oral directions of Tahsildar; the Mandal Revenue Inspector, Musunuru and Village Revenue Officer, Musunuru were directed to resume the land for distribution of house sites to the poor under the scheme “Navaratnalu Pedalandariki Illu”. The said order further disclosed that as per Act 09 of 1977 when the land was assigned to landless poor, such assigned land cannot be alienated and that the husband of the writ petitioner/beneficiary under assignment did not bring the property of an extent of Ac.1.85 cents to cultivation within three (3) years, thereby resumed the land.
As seen from the allegations made in the representation dated 25.01.2020, she submitted copy of D-Form patta, Pattadar passbook and Adangal, certificate issued by Bank and copy of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.21220 of 2019 for consideration. The pattadar passbook and Adangal would disclose the actual cultivation of the land and possession of the land, but none of the documents were considered while passing order dated 26.01.2020 in Rc.B/65/2020, and not even referred to, but straight away passed the order as if the land was not brought under cultivation. Therefore, Smt. Lingamaneni Vijaya Lakshmi approached this Court, filed writ petition No.3285 of 2020 on various grounds.
On 13.02.2020, this Court passed the following order.
“This petition is filed questioning the order passed by 4th respondent in R.C.B.No.65/2020, dated26.01.2020 for resumption of the assigned land, on various grounds.
On the grounds raised by the petitioner in the earlier W.P.No.21220 of 2019, this Court directed the respondents not to dispossess this petitioner except by due process of law, if they propose to resume the assigned land from the petitioner. But, the Tahsildar gave different interpretation to the order of this Court, recorded a specific finding that the petition waws dismissed as there is nothing to be decided and passed the order even without issuing any notice to the petitioner, calling for explanation for the alleged violations as mandated under Rule 3 of the A.P.Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Rules, 2007.
MSM,J CC_354_2020
4
The Tahsildar is not entitled to sit over the order of the court in appeal against the order passed by the Hon’bleCourt and gave different interpretation to the order passed by this Court for resumption of assigned land. It is nothing but will flouting of orders passed by this Court giving purposive interpretation to the order of this Court.
Therefore, Sri T.Madanmohan Rao, Tahsildar, Musunuru Mandal, Krishna District is directed to appear personally on Monday i.e., on 17.02.2020, at 10.30 AM before the Court, to explain as to why action should not be taken against him.
The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Assignment, undertakes to inform the same to Tahsildar, Musunuru Mandal.
It is further directed the respondents, not to dispossess the petitioner from the subject land for a period of one month from today.”
Despite the order passed by this Court extracted above, the contemnor/Tahsildar, in utter disobedience of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.3285 of 2020 dated 13.02.2020, did not appear before this Court on 17.02.2020. Thereupon, bailable warrant was issued against the contemnor/Tahsildar on 17.02.2020. On issuance of bailable warrant, the contemnor/Tahsildar appeared before this Court on 24.02.2020 and gave explanation. Dissatisfied with the oral explanation submitted by the contemnor/Tahsildar, suo moto contempt was taken up by this Court on 24.02.2020.
In the earlier round of litigation i.e. in W.P.No.21220 of 2019 this Court passed an order on 30.12.2019 directing the respondents to follow due process of law, if they propose to resume the assigned land from the petitioner. Till such exercise is undertaken, the respondents shall not take any coercive steps to evict the petitioner from assigned land. Thereupon, started proceedings by issuing notice dated 22.01.2020, which is not in consonance with provisions of A.P.Act 09 of 1977 and Rule 3 of the Rules framed under the Act 09 of 1977. This Court time and again
MSM,J CC_354_2020
5
directed the revenue authorities to follow the rules framed under the Act while resuming the land as held in M/s Sudalagunta Sugars Limited., v. The Joint Collector, Chittoor and another1 . But for one reason or the other, the revenue authorities are not adhering to the procedure and following their own procedure. Notice issued by the contemnor/Tahsildar is contrary to the procedure prescribed under the Act 09 of 1977 and rules framed thereunder. No violation was pointed out in the said notice, however, validity of such notice cannot be decided in the present petition. This Court also passed an order on 13.02.2020 directing the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the subject land for a period of one month from the date of order except by following due process of law. But for one reason or the other, contemnor passed an order in Rc.B/65/2020 dated 15.12.2020, wherein it is observed that the assigned land is not adjusted for distribution of house sites, more than 444 beneficiaries are available in the Musunuru village and the land could not be adjusted to 444 beneficiaries in RS.No.745/4 in an extent of Ac.1.85 cents, as Lingamaneni Vijayalakshmi, W/o Radha Krishna has not possessed sufficient land to distribute the same in Navaratnalu Peddaliki Illu programme, hence redelivered the possession of the land to the petitioner.
If the original assignee or his wife Lingamaneni Vijaya Lakshmi violated the conditions of assignment, question of redelivering property on the ground that Ac.1.85 cents is not sufficient to distribute house sites to 444 beneficiaries does not arise. When once it is vested with the Government after resumption, unless the order is set aside, the question of handing
1 (2017) 2 ALD 529
MSM,J CC_354_2020
6
over the possession or redelivery of possession to the original assignee is nothing but circumventing the provisions while justifying the act of the contemnor. Therefore, it is evident that the contemnor conveniently passed orders at the instance of his superior officials or at the instance of political bigwigs in the Mandal and to avoid contempt, the contemnor adopted a different procedure and re-delivered the possession to Lingamaneni Vijaya Lakshmi, obtained delivery receipt dated 15.12.2020 in the presence of 6 mediators. Therefore, contemnor made an attempt to defraud the Court to avoid contempt proceedings.
Husband of the petitioner Lingamaneni Vijaya Lakshmi was beneficiary under the assignment issued as per B.S.O 15 of Andhra Pradesh Board Revenue Standing Orders. A specific procedure is prescribed for resuming the land in the event of violation of conditions contemplated under the Act 09 of 1977 and Rule 3 of the rules framed thereunder. Taking advantage of the order dated 30.12.2019 passed in W.P.No.21220 of 2019, the contemnor issued notice without disclosing any details called upon the petitioner to be present before him on 25.01.2020 and produce documents . On appearance of the petitioner on 25.01.2020, the contemnor passed an order on the next day i.e. on 26.01.2020 resuming the land and the same is questioned in Writ Petition No.3285 of 2020 and to avoid the contempt proceedings, the contemnor issued proceedings in Rc.B/65/2020 dated 15.12.2020 i.e. after initiating contempt against the petitioner.
During course of hearing in W.P.No.3285 of 2020 on 24.12.2020, this Court observed that the contemnor/respondent has not followed the procedure as directed by this Court in W.P.No.21220 of 2019 dated 30.12.2019, whereunder, a specific
MSM,J CC_354_2020
7
direction was issued in Paragraph No.6, directing the respondents to follow due process of law if they propose to resume the assigned land from the petitioner and that, instead of following the procedure, the contemnor /4th respondent passed the impugned order in R.C.B/65/2020 dated 26.01.2020 intentionally. But, no material is available on record to show that the physical possession was taken from the writ petitioner except passing an order for resumption of the land without cancelling a patta granted in favour of husband of Lingamaneni Vijaya Lakshmi. If really, the possession was taken either by Village Revenue Officer or Revenue Inspector in pursuance of the order passed by the contemnor, there must be some evidence, but no such evidence is available about taking physical possession of the property after resumption order, but redelivered the property by order dated 15.12.2020 and obtained acknowledgement of delivery of possession from Lingamaneni Vijaya Lakshmi on the same day. Thus, the contemnor conveniently created several documents and played fraud on the Court itself. Thus, the act of the contemnor both in failure to follow the procedure prescribed under law as directed by this Court in Writ petition No.3285 of 2020 and creation of evidence to circumvent the provisions of law, to avoid contempt is sufficient to found the contemnor guilty for contempt of Court.
More curiously, in Paragraph No.6 of the affidavit dated 17.12.2020, intentionally or unintentionally, the contemnor made a clear admission that, the contemnor wilfully disobeyed the order passed by this Court and the specific allegation is extracted hereunder:
“It is respectfully submitted that, there is wilful disobedience on my part for the orders passed by
MSM,J CC_354_2020
8
this Hon’ble Court. I submit that I have great respect and highest regard to the orders passed by this Hon’ble Court and I hereby tender my unconditional apology for the inconvenience caused this Hon’ble Court and the same may be accepted and close the contempt case.”
This admission, on oath, is suffice to conclude that the petitioner disobeyed the order wilfully. But, the learned counsel for the contemnor submitted that, by mistake, this admission was made and filed another affidavit along with the proceedings withdrawing the judicial admission made in the original affidavit. But, no permission was obtained for filing an additional affidavit or for withdrawing the original admission, except filing a memo dated 22.12.2020. On the memo dated 22.12.2020, no judicial order can be passed, as it is only intimation to the Court. Therefore, in the absence of any permission, the additional affidavit filed on 17.12.2020 cannot be looked into. However, such withdrawal of admission is impermissible under law. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that the contemnor intentionally disobeyed the order of this Court and liable for action of contempt.
Disobedience of the order passed by this Court by the contemnor is wilful and based on the allegations made in the affidavit, this Court can draw an inference that this contemnor wilfully and intentionally disobeyed the order passed by this Court and dispossessed the petitioner from the land in dispute. Such disobedience warrants serious action against this contemnor.
The contempt of court is defined under Section 2(a) as follows:
MSM,J CC_354_2020
9
Contempt of court means, Civil contempt or Criminal contempt. Whereas clause b of Section 2 defined civil contempt and it deems willful disobedience of any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a Court or willful breach of an undertaking given to a court .
Contempt jurisdiction is not conferred on the Subordinate courts and it is only conferred on the court of record, in view of Article 215 of The Constitution of India. According to it, High Court shall be a court of record and shall have all the powers of such a court, including the power to punish for contempt of itself. The jurisdiction of contempt is independent jurisdiction of its original nature. Therefore, this Court is competent to exercise such power to punish a person who is guilty of contempt and this jurisdiction is enjoyed by the Courts, is only for the purpose of upholding the jurisdiction of judicial system that exists. While exercising this power, Court must not react by emotion, but must act judicially. Contempt proceedings are intended to ensure compliance of the orders of court and strict adherence of rule of law. Once the essentials for initiation of contempt proceedings are satisfied, court shall initiate action, uninfluenced by the nature of direction in a pending lis before the court vide judgment in Priya Gupta and another vs. Additional Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and others2 .
Contempt jurisdiction enjoyed by the Courts is only for the purpose of upholding the majesty of the judicial system that exists. While exercising this power, the Courts must not be hyper sensitive or swung by emotions, but must act judiciously (Vide: Chairman, West Bengal Administration Tribunal v.
S.K.Monobbor Hossain3 )
2 2012 (12) Supreme Court, page 289
3 (2012) 3 SCALE 534
MSM,J CC_354_2020
10
“Contempt” is disorderly conduct of a contemnor causing serious damage to the institution of justice administration. Such conduct, with reference to its adverse effects and consequences, can be discernibly classified into two categories one which has a transient effect on the system and/or the person concerned and is likely to wither away by the passage of time while the other causes permanent damage to the institution and administration of justice
(See: Kalyaneshwari v. Union of India4 )
In view of the law laid down in the judgments (referred supra), when contemnor deliberately violated the order of the Court, he is liable for consequences under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, but the Court cannot be hyper sensitive in taking action against the contemnor. Taking into consideration of the redelivery of the possession of the property on 15.12.2020, I feel that lenient view has to be taken against the contemnor, who is at the verge of retirement, allegedly.
In any view of the matter, based on the material on record, including the affidavit filed by the contemnor, though tendered unconditional apology, I hold that this contemnor is guilty of civil contempt and liable for punishment, in accordance with law.
Though the contemnor is liable for punishment under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, but, in view of the request made by the learned counsel for the contemnor and considering the present service, age and also taking into consideration the unconditional apology tendered by the contemnor for his wilful disobedience of the orders of this Court, I deem it appropriate to impose penalty of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousands only).
4 (2011) 6 SCALE 220
MSM,J CC_354_2020
11
In the result, the contempt case is disposed of, sentencing the contemnor to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousands only) within two weeks from the date of this order, in default of payment of fine, the contemnor shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two (02) months. The said amount of fine be borne by the contemnor from his pocket, but not from the public exchequer.
_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
Date:24.12.2020 SP/Ksp
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Tahsildar committed civil contempt for willfully disobeying the High Court's order to follow due process before resuming assigned land.
Whether the validity of the dismissal order and interim relief in the petitioner's earlier writ petition affects the finding of contempt.
Appropriate punishment to be imposed on the contemnor considering the apology and lenient stance.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
M/s Sudalagunta Sugars Limited. v. The Joint Collector, ChittoorReferred¶41
(2017) 2 ALD 529
Priya Gupta and another vs. Additional Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family WelfareReferred¶63
2012 (12) Supreme Court, page 289
Chairman, West Bengal Administration Tribunal v. S.K. Monobbor HossainReferred¶64
(2012) 3 SCALE 534
Kalyaneshwari v. Union of IndiaReferred¶71
(2011) 6 SCALE 220
3 provisions across 2 enactments
State of Andhra Pradesh (Tahsildar, Musunuru Mandal)
Writ Petitioners/Others involved in earlier proceedings
M. Satyanarayana Murthy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
