Held the contempt case dismissed accepting the respondent's apology regarding a genuine mistake. Directed the respondent not to evict the petitioner or interfere with cultivation until necessary orders are passed.
The petitioner is allowed to cultivate the land without eviction or interference until necessary orders are passed.
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.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY
CONTEMPT CASE No.121 OF 2011
DATE:11-03-2011
BETWEEN M.K.Rajagopal The District Collector, Kadapa, Kadapa District & others.
AND
…Petitioner
…Respondents
THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY
CONTEMPT CASE No.121 OF 2011
ORDER:
Petitioner, who was granted D.K.T. patta along with other writ petitioners for various extents of land in Sy.Nos.301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 307, 308, 309, 310 and 311 of Nagasanipalli Village, Khajipet Mandal, Kadapa District earlier filed a writ petition along with others in W.P.No.18375 of 2004 seeking a direction to the respondents not to interfere with his possession and enjoyment over the land, which is in his occupation. By order, dated 8.10.2004 this Court disposed of the writ petition holding that as the third respondent has already issued
notices fixing the date of enquiry for cancellation of D.K.T. pattas, they are under obligation to conduct a detailed enquiry by giving due notice and opportunity to the petitioners for such cancellation and shall pass a speaking order and if the said order goes against the petitioners, after expiry of the appeal period only, the respondents can take possession of the property in question. Thereafter the third respondent issued an urgent notice, dated 10.01.2011 stating that one M.K.Rajgopal (petitioner herein) forcibly entered into the land and levelled it with the help of J.C.B. and tractors as reported by the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and others of Nagasanipalli Village, that on perusal of the village revenue records, the land is shown as Tank Poramboke canal land and no D.K.T. pattas have been granted to any person and therefore, until further orders are passed, the petitioner was prohibited from entering into the said land and failure to do so, it was made clear that necessary legal action will be initiated against the petitioner. Alleging that issuance of said notice amounts to violating the directions issued by this Court in the Writ Petition, the present contempt case is filed.
On issuing Form-I notice, the Tahsildar, Kajipet filed a counter affidavit stating that he is working as Talsildar of Kajipet from June, 2009 onwards, that the petitioner, who was assigned the land to an extent of Ac.2.00 cents, brought J.C.B. for the purpose of leveling the assigned land on 10.1.2011 and on noticing the same, the villagers of Nagasanipalli village obstructed him from entering into the land and that they also gave a complaint to this respondent to take action against the petitioner since he violated the conditions of patta. On receipt of the said complaint from the villagers, he along with the Mandal Revenue Inspector and Mandal Surveyor inspected the land and directed the petitioner not to take any further steps and he also issued the notice on 10.1.2011 to that effect. He pleaded that he is not aware of the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.18375 of 2004,
dated 8.10.2004 and he issued the notice with a genuine mistake and offered his apology to this Court stating that the issuance of notice is neither willful nor wanton since the file relating to the said land was misplaced in the office.
The fact remains that this Court directed the third respondent to pass a speaking order on the notice issued for cancellation of D.K.T. patta and if the order goes against the petitioner, only after expiry of appeal period, the respondents can take possession of the property in question. By issuing the impugned notice, the respondents have not taken possession of the property as such, but on the protest made by the villagers, the third respondent only directed the petitioner not to enter into the land with J.C.B. for the present. The apology tendered by the third respondent is accepted since he was assumed the office only in June, 2009. In the circumstances of the case, it is not a fit case to proceed against the respondents for contempt of court on issuing such notice. However, the respondents are directed not to evict the petitioner nor interfere with his cultivation, if any, as he did earlier to the filing of the contempt case on verification of the pahanies and allow him to cultivate the land until necessary orders are passed.
With the above observations, the contempt case is dismissed. No order as to costs.
_______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J.
MARCH 11, 2011 Tsr.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the court should proceed with contempt proceedings against the respondent for issuing a notice prohibited by previous orders.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to continued cultivation of the land pending cancellation of patta.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M.K.Rajagopal
District Collector, Kadapa
A. GOPAL REDDY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
