Dismissed

P.Chandra Sekhar Reddy v. Sri Sreenivasulu Ganjarapalli

Andhra Pradesh HC30 Dec 2021CC/3424/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt case filed against Tahsildar for alleged non-compliance with a High Court order directing action on land mutation petitions. Court examined the timeline of notices, application dates, and recorded orders, finding no willful violation as the application was disposed of with a speaking order after hearing all parties. Dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Contempt case dismissed; leave open for petitioner to assail the order dated 26.12.2018.

P.Chandra Sekhar Reddy Vs Sri Sreenivasulu… — Contempt of Court | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR CONTEMPT CASE No.3424 of 2018

¶2

ORDER:-

¶3

Alleging willful and deliberate violation of the Order, dated 12.09.2018, passed in W.P.No.32703 of 2018, by the respondent, the present Contempt Case is filed under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

¶4

The above mentioned Writ Petition came to be filed, seeking issuance of Writ of Mandamus to declare the inaction on the part of the respondent No.3 in considering the petitioner’s application, dated 15.05.2018 and 18.06.2018 in accordance with the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 and the Rules made therein as illegal and arbitrary.

¶5

Vide order, dated 12.09.2018 in W.P.No.32703 of 2018, the Court passed an order, the operative portion of which is as under:

¶6

“…..directing the petitioner to submit a fresh application through online enclosing all the relevant documents in respect of the subject land, in which event, the 3^rd respondent/Tahsildar shall deal with same and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, as early as possible, preferably within a period of three to four months from the date of submission of fresh application after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and all concerned”.

¶7

¶8

CPK, J C.C.No.3424 of 2018

¶9

Subsequent to the order passed by this Court, the petitioner is said to have made an application on 26.09.2018, which was rejected on 12.10.2018 though the date of hearing was fixed on 20.10.2018 in the notice dated 12.10.2018. Hence, it is pleaded that the Tahsildar has committed Contempt of the Court for not passing the order in terms of the Order, dated 12.09.2018.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly submits that no opportunity was given to the petitioner to present the case and an order, if any came to be passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is further stated that the notice, dated 12.10.2018, was received on 12.10.2018 itself and an order came to be passed on the very same day rejecting the request. Hence, the direction of this Court, directing the authorities to give an opportunity of hearing has not been complied with, leave alone passing of the order.

¶11

A counter came to be filed by the Tahsildar/respondent No.3 disputing the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. It is stated that an online application was made on 26.09.2018 through Mee Seva and also a manual representation to the Tahsildar with a request to mutate his name in revenue records, in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.0.20 cents situated at Sy.No.77/1 and

¶12

¶13

CPK, J C.C.No.3424 of 2018

¶14

Ac.0.22 cents situated at Sy.No.76/1 of Ramrajupalli Village of Kadapa Mandal. As per the counter, notices were issued to (1) Smt. N.H. Pyarijaan, (2) Smt. Palagiri Lalithamma, (3) Sri Ponnolu Chandrasekhar Reddy to attend before the Tahsildar, Kadapa on 20.10.2018 along with the documents. It is said that Palagiri Lalithamma and Ponnolu Chandra Sekhar Reddy appeared and submitted documents in support of their plea. The material filed by both of them was verified. It is stated in the counter that the petitioner herein did not submit any substantial evidence showing his statutory right over the land, namely as to how the subject land was acquired by him.

¶15

(a) It is further stated that the subject land shown as patta land in the revenue records is in the names of Rahambi and Palagiri Subbaiah and the same was also recorded in the names of their successors. Pattadar Passbooks/Title Deeds were also issued in their favour, as such the remedy for the petitioner lies elsewhere. It is stated that the online application of the petitioner, dated 26.09.2018, was disposed of vide proceedings dated 26.12.2018 and the same was communicated to him on 27.12.2018 by registered post acknowledgment due.

¶16

The grounds raised in the counter affidavit are re-agitated before this Court by the learned Government Pleader for Revenue.

¶17

¶18

CPK, J C.C.No.3424 of 2018

¶19

In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the notice and the order came to be passed on the very same day which is evident from the Mee Seva Integrated Service Delivery Gateway receipt.

¶20

There is no dispute that the document referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner relate to Mee Seva which shows that under the column ‘status’ it is mentioned as ‘rejected’ and under the column approved/rejected, the date it is shown as ‘12.10.2018’. In the remarks column, it is stated that as notice served on both the parties and the issue is pending in Tahsildar Court. Having regard to the usage of the word ‘rejection’ in status column and the date of the said rejection as 12.10.2018, learned counsel for the petitioner mainly submitted that the notice as well as the order came to be passed on the very same day. It is not in dispute that the notice was issued on 12.10.2018, but the rejection was not in respect of the said application which was made on 26.09.2018. What it means is that as the matter is pending before the Tahsildar, the online application is rejected. This endorsement came to be made for the reason that Mee Seva application, which is an electronic form, will be accepted by the software automatically after the expiry of 30 days duly mutating the name in favour of the petitioner in revenue records though it is pending before the Tahsildar. Hence, to avoid deemed

¶21

¶22

CPK, J C.C.No.3424 of 2018

¶23

mutation automatically, the application was rejected on 12.10.2018 which is the date of service of the notice to the petitioner as stated by the petitioner in the writ petition. Therefore, the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that no notice was issued and that the order came to be passed behind the back of the petitioner cannot be accepted.

¶24

The record shows that pursuant to the order passed in W.P.No.32703 of 2018, a representation was made where notices were issued directing the parties to appear before the Tahsildar at the office of the Tahsildar. All the parties to whom the notices have been issued did appear and filed the documents available, but the petitioner herein has not produced any documents of the subject land except the judgment of the Civil Court in O.S.No.86 of 1997. After verifying the material placed and the orders passed, it was found that the petitioner failed to establishing his title over the subject land and accordingly the application of the petitioner was rejected on 26.12.2018. A copy of the said order was received on 27.12.2018. Apart from that, the same was also sent by way of Registered Post Acknowledgment Due.

¶25

It would be appropriate to extract the relevant portion in the counter filed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, which is as under:

¶26

¶27

CPK, J C.C.No.3424 of 2018

¶28

“(iv) Accordingly, the application of the petitioner Sri Ponnolu Chandra Sekhar Reddy, S/o. Narasimha Reddy dated 26.09.2018 is disposed off and the orders of the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad in W.P.No.32703/2018 dated 12.09.2018 are complied with and to that effect a speaking order was issued vide this office Ref.No.TAHKDP-TLOROR (AD)/7/2018-SA-TAH(KDP)KDPDVSN, Dt:26.12.2018 to the applicant by way of registered post bearing No.RN60098984/IN, dt:27.12.2018 as it was rejected by him to take it from the Village Revenue Officer, Ramarajupalli Village of Kadapa Mandal.

¶29

(v) Further, it was also informed to the petitioner in the aforesaid speaking order, that an appeal against the aforesaid speaking orders lies with the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadapa within a period of 60 (sixty) days from the date of communication of the said order U/S.5(5) AP Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971.

¶30

(vi) It is submitted that, it is to point out that the petitioner in the present contempt case stated that he has made an application through meeseva bearing application No.RMU011801393730, dt:26.09.2018 was rejected on 12.10.2018. The said application was rejected duly stating that “notices served to both parties and issue pending in Tahsildar court” after a period of 16 days which was not stated and concealed by the petitioner in the present contempt case before the Hon’ble High Court. It is rejected, because, the Meeseva application which is in electronic form will be accepted by the software automatically after expiry of 30 days duly mutating in favour of petitioner’s name in revenue records for the subject land even though it was pending in Tahsildar Court. Hence, to avoid deemed mutation automatically, the application made by the petitioner was rejected on 12.10.2018 which is the date of service of notice to the petitioner as stated by the petitioner in the present writ petition.

¶31

(vii) It is also submitted that, the petitioner in the present contempt case while filing the present contempt case

¶32

¶33

CPK, J C.C.No.3424 of 2018

¶34

has also filed writ petition bearing No. 47079 of 2018 on 24.12.2018 before the Hon’ble High Court of A.P., simultaneously and the Hon’ble High Court of A.P., disposed the said writ petition on 28.12.2018 with the disposal Type as “Disposed of No costs” and the orders are yet to be received from the Hon’ble High Court of A.P.”

¶35

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner did not receive the copy of the order as it was intentionally not sent to the correct address. In other words, learned counsel for the petitioner pleads that the order is invented for the purpose of this case and if really there was an order, nothing prevented them to send it to the correct address, but instead it was sent to Shankarapuram (Cuddapah) which is no way connected with the address of the petitioner.

¶36

In order to test the same, I have perused the cover which show that it returned on the ground that the door was locked for seven days (with the postal receipt). The said cover contains a QR code issued by the Indian Postal and Telegrams at the time of sending the cover by Registered Post. The code number on the cover is RN600989847IN. When the same was compared with the postal receipt, there is no variation in the number, which fact is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The address mentioned on the cover is same as mentioned in the cause title of the writ petition. Having regard to the disputed

¶37

¶38

CPK, J C.C.No.3424 of 2018

¶39

factual aspects, it cannot be said that there are any willful or deliberate violation of the order by the respondent.

¶40

In view of the above, the Contempt Case is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to assail the order, dated 26.12.2018, if so advised.

¶41

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Contempt Case shall stand closed.

¶42

JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

Date: 30.12.2021

CPK, J C.C.No.3424 of 2018

¶47

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶48

CONTEMPT CASE No.3424 of 2018

¶49

Date:30.12.2021

¶50

P.Chandra Sekhar Reddy v. Sri Sreenivasulu Ganjarapalli

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Chandra Sekhar Reddy v. Sri Sreenivasulu Ganjarapalli

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kota Sampoorna Pawani [Died] Vs The State

Bellam Suryavani Vs The Managing Director -Lpg Region Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited

N. Kalpana, Chittoor Dist. Vs R. Jayakrishna, Chennai and 8 Othrs

S Shameer Vs K R M K Kumar

Vennapusa Subba Reddy, Vs R. Brahmaiah

Jamhuriyat Islamic Jamayat, Vs Sri Habeebuddin Ahmed