V Ranga Dasu Vs P. Arun Babu

Petition under Se c tions 10 to 12 of Contempt of Co u rts Act 1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit file h e rein the High Court may be pleased t o summon, prosecute, and punish the Respondents under Sec 10 to 12 of t h e Contempt of Courts Act for willful a nd deliberate violation of the order s of this Hon’ble High Court, dt. 2 8-12-2023 in WP.No.32606 of 2023 a nd to pass

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶18

1.A RAJENDRA BA B U

¶19

Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 1.K M KRISHNA RE D DY

¶20

2

¶21

The Court made the following order:

¶22

This Contempt Case is filed under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against the respondents for willful disobedience of the order dated 28.12.2023 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.32606 of 2023.

¶23

Heard Sri A.Rajendra Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.M.Krishna Reddy, leaned counsel for the respondents.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit, contended that when the respondent authorities failed to consider the petitioner’s case for allotment of land in survey No.272-2A at Kattamuru village under the Ex-servicemen quota, as per G.O.Ms.No.743, Revenue Department, dated 30.04.1963 despite the issuance of proceedings by respondent No.3 dated 22.12.2020 and the Village Revenue Officer having reported no objection for grant of patta, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.32606 of 2023. This Court, vide order dated 28.12.2023, disposed of the petitioner’s representation dated 28.07.2023 directing the respondent authorities to consider the same in accordance with law duly taking into consideration the G.O.Ms.No.743 dated 30.04.1963, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Despite the said direction, respondent No.2 has not passed order in terms of the direction within the stipulated period. He further submitted that

¶25

3

¶26

the petitioner got issued a legal notice dated 04.02.2025 seeking compliance with the directions of this Court, however, on receipt of the said legal notice, respondent No.2 issued proceedings in Rc.No.573/2023-A, dated 05.02.2025 marking copy of the endorsement to the petitioner informing that the petitioner’s field enjoyment proposals have been submitted to the District Collector through Revenue Divisional Officer, Sattenapalli for assignment of subject land, which is in clear violation of the orders of this Court. Hence, the respondent authorities are liable for punishment for their willful disobedience of the orders of this Court.

¶27

On the other hand, Sri K.M.Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents, while reiterating the contents of the reply affidavit filed by respondent No.2, contended that allotment of subject land in favour of the petitioner is required to be placed before the Assignment Review Committee and as and when the said committee convenes its meeting, the proposal for grant of the subject land to the petitioner will be placed before the Committee and necessary action will be taken as per the orders of the Assignment Committee. The convening of the Assignment Review Committee meeting is not within the jurisdiction of the respondent, as such, there has been some delay in complying the orders of this Court. A detailed endorsement dated 09.07.2025 has also been issued to the petitioner to that effect intimating compliance with the orders of this Court. Hence, there is no violation or willful disobedience on the part of the respondents in implementing the orders of this Court. If at all the petitioner

¶28

4

¶29

is not satisfied with the endorsement issued by the Tahsildar, he may question the same before the appropriate authority. Hence, prayed to close the Contempt Case.

¶30

Perused the record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

¶31

This Court, vide order dated 28.12.2023, disposed of the Writ Petition No.32606 of 2023 with the following order:

¶32

“Respondent No.4-Tahsildar is directed to dispose of the petitioner’s representation dated 28.07.2023 in accordance with law by duly taking into consideration the G.O.ms.No.743, Revenue Department, dated 30.04.1963, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the same to the petitioner.”

¶33

The endorsement of the Tahsildar vide Rc.No.573/2023-A dated 09.07.2025, which is filed along with the counter, would indicate that after thorough verification of the office records and on field verification, there is no suitable Government land is available in Sattenapalli Mandal for allotment to the petitioner except Ac.3.13 cents in survey No.272/1 and survey No.272/2-A of Kattamuru village of Sattenapalli Mandal. When the Assignment Committee convene a meeting, the subject matter file i.e ., for allotment of land to an extent of Ac.3.13 cents to the petitioner will be

¶34

5

¶35

placed before the Assignment Committee and necessary action will be taken as per the orders of the Assignment Committee. The said endorsement would indicate that the authorities have duly complied the orders of this Court.

¶36

The contention of the petitioner is that despite specific directions issued by this Court, the authorities have failed to pass the orders in a right perspective and have passed the orders contrary to law. He further submitted that the petitioner is entitled to an extent of Ac.5.00 cents under Ex-servicemen quota as per G.O.Ms.No.743 Revenue Department, dated 30.04.1963, however, the authorities have forwarded proposals only to an extent of Ac.3.13 cents. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the issues relating to apportionment of land fall within the jurisdiction of the competent authority and cannot be adjudicated by this Court in contempt proceedings.

¶37

In Prithawi Nath Ram v. State of Jharkhand and others¹ , the

¶38

Hon’ble Apex Court held that, while dealing with an application for contempt, the Court is really concerned with the question whether the earlier decision which has received its finality had been complied with or not. It would not be permissible for a Court to examine the correctness of the earlier decision which had not been assailed and to take the view different than what was taken in the earlier decision. If any party concerned is aggrieved by the order which in its opinion is wrong or against rules or its

¶39

1 (2004) 7 SCC 261

¶40

6

¶41

implementation is neither practicable nor feasible, it should always either approach to the Court that passed the order or invoke jurisdiction of the Appellate Court.

¶42

The weapon of contempt will not be used for execution of the decree or implementation of an order for which alternative remedy in law is provided for. The paramount consideration is given to maintain court’s dignity and majesty of law. In Sudhir Vasudeva v. George Ravishekeran² , this Court has observed that a Court exercising jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 must not travel beyond the four corners of the orders in relation to which contempt has been alleged. That the Court hearing a contempt petition ought to restrict the scope of its enquiry to such directions which are explicit in the judgment or orders of which contempt has been alleged.

¶43

Taking the submissions of both the learned counsel, the law laid down above and the endorsement dated 09.07.2025 issued by the Tahsildar into consideration, as the authorities have stated that the subject matter is required to be placed before the Assignment Review Committee for necessary action, there is no element of contempt as alleged by the petitioner, Hence, the Contempt Case is liable to be dismissed.

¶44