Bodapati Anand Vs K. Ramachandra Mohan

This Court has sifted through the Order of this Court dated 14.11.2014 in W.P.No.24846 of 2010. This Court has seen the operative portion of the said Order, which is usefully extracted hereunder :

¶21

“For the aforesaid reasons and having regard to the provisions of the ROR Act, 1971 and having regard to the law laid down in the above referred Judgments, the writ petition is disposed of, making the interim order of status quo as final order in the writ petition, directing the status quo to be maintained with regard to possession and enjoyment of the subject lands admeasuring Ac.13.75 cents situated in Sy.No.86 Nerellavalasa village, Bheemunipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District while giving liberty to the respondents herein to avail all the remedies including the civil suit for redressal of their grievance and to initiate any action in accordance with law. It is also made clear that the relief sought to the extent of ownership in respect of the subject property of the petitioners herein is hereby rejected. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, If any, shall stand dismissed. No order as to costs.”

¶22

The Status-quo was directed to be maintained by this Court vide Order dated 14.11.2014, the present Contempt Case is filed by the Petitioners complaining of violation of the Status-quo Order that is passed by this Court. It is stated in the Affidavit that this Order of the Court dated 14.11.2014 has attained finality and that the Petitioners have issued legal notice on 21.10.2017 and 03.11.2017 to remove the board erected in the land through their representatives. It is stated that the said board erected in the land of Petitioners belongs to the Respondent Trust and that the said Respondent Trust has not acceded to the request of the Petitioners. This averment is made in the Para No.10 of the Affidavit filed in support of this Contempt Case. It is nowhere else stated that the board has been erected after passing of the Order by this Court on 14.11.2014. This apart, the averments in Para No.10 of the Affidavit would clearly indicate that the board has been in existence as on the date of the passing of the Order by this Court on 14.11.2014. Admittedly, the said Order of Status-quo has been made absolute. Therefore, if any board was already erected on the land as on the date when the Order was passed on 14.11.2014, it is incumbent on all the parties to maintain

¶23

3

¶24

Status-quo including retaining of the said board unless the Order of Statusquo which has been made absolute has been modified by this Court.

¶25

This apart, there is an averment stating that the Respondent Trust has violated the Order by trespassing into the subject land but the Petitioners herein have not filed any evidence to indicate that the Respondent Trust has trespassed into the land. Mere averment without substantiating with any material would be inadequate in the Contempt Proceedings, inasmuch as the standard of proof that is required to establish a fact against the Contemnors shall be of such material which is beyond reasonable doubt, since the Contempt Proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature.

¶26

I n Ram Kishan vs. Tarun Bajaj and Others : (2014) 16 SCC 204, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in Para No.11 as under:

¶27

“11. The contempt jurisdiction conferred on to the law courts power to punish an offender for his wilful disobedience/contumacious conduct or obstruction to the majesty of law, for the reason that respect and authority commanded by the courts of law are the greatest guarantee to an ordinary citizen that his rights shall be protected and the entire democratic fabric of the society will crumble down if the respect of the judiciary is undermined. Undoubtedly, the contempt jurisdiction is a powerful weapon in the hands of the courts of law but that by itself operates as a string of caution and unless, thus, otherwise satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, it would neither be fair nor reasonable for the law courts to exercise jurisdiction under the Act. The proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature, and therefore, standard of proof required in these proceedings is beyond all reasonable doubt. It would rather be hazardous to impose sentence for contempt on the authorities in exercise of the contempt jurisdiction on mere probabilities. (Vide V.G. Nigam v. Kedar Nath Gupta [V.G. Nigam v. Kedar Nath Gupta, (1992) 4 SCC 697 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 202 : (1993) 23 ATC 400] , Chhotu Ram v. Urvashi Gulati [Chhotu Ram v. Urvashi Gulati, (2001) 7 SCC 530 : 2001 SCC (L&S) 1196] , Anil Ratan Sarkar v. Hirak Ghosh [Anil Ratan Sarkar v. Hirak Ghosh, (2002) 4 SCC 21] , Bank of Baroda v. Sadruddin Hasan Daya [Bank of Baroda v. Sadruddin Hasan Daya, (2004) 1 SCC 360] , Sahdeo v. State of U.P. [Sahdeo v. State of U.P., (2010) 3 SCC 705 : (2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 451] and National Fertilizers

¶28

4

¶29

Ltd. v. Tuncay Alankus [National Fertilizers Ltd. v. Tuncay Alankus, (2013) 9 SCC 600 : (2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 481 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 172] .)”

¶30

In the above premise, the Petitioners herein have failed to establish that there is violation of the Order of this Court dated 14.11.2014 in W.P.No.24846 of 2010. This Court is of the opinion that the Respondent Trust has not committed any contempt. Accordingly, this Contempt Case is dismissed as devoid of any merit. No Order as to Costs.

¶31