A writ petition regarding land acquisition was dismissed as maintained bell by limitation under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, as the filing occurred over one year after the alleged contempt.
The Contempt Case was dismissed as barred by limitation.
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 V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA
CONTEMPT CASE No.954 OF 2011
Dated:30.09.2011
Between:
Pelluru Peddamunu Swamy and another .. Petitioners
And
A.Prasad, Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Tirupati, Chittoor District .. Respondent
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA
CONTEMPT CASE No.954 OF 2011
ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S. Rao)
The petitioners filed writ petition being W.P.No.3446 of 2007 seeking a declaration that the action of the second respondent in not conducting enquiry and not passing any orders on the representation of the petitioners dated 28.01.2007 with regard to their ownership to the lands in question as illegal, arbitrary and for a consequential direction to conduct enquiry.
The writ petition was disposed of on 17.02.2009 directing the second respondent to conduct an enquiry as to whether the petitioners’ grand father was shown as pattedar in the revenue records in respect of the land comprised in Survey Nos.5, 13, 14 and 16 admeasuring Acs.6.34 cents situated at Changambakam Village of Satyavedu Mandal in Chittoor District. The petitioners filed writ appeal being W.A.No.1467 of 2009. The same was disposed of on
21.12.2009 modifying the order of the learned single Judge. The Land Acquisition Officer was directed to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the LA Act, for brevity) to decide the reference as to whether the petitioners or respondents 4 to 24 therein are entitled to receive the compensation for the land which was acquired.
This Contempt Case is filed on 13.07.2011, two years after the disposal of the writ appeal. It is alleged that in spite of the directions of the Letters Patent Bench, the reference was not made to the civil Court. The Contempt Case is opposed by the Government Pleader for Land Acquisition alleging that the same is barred by limitation under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (the Act, for brevity).
Section 20 of the Act prohibits any Court from initiating proceedings for contempt either on its own motion or otherwise, after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed. Construing the same in
Pallav Sheth v Custodia n[1] , the Supreme Court held as under.
Action for contempt is divisible into two categories, namely, that initiated suo motu by the court and that instituted otherwise than on the court’s own motion. The mode of initiation in each case would necessarily be different. While in the case of suo motu proceedings, it is the court itself which must initiate by issuing a notice, in the other cases initiation can only be by a party filing an application. In our opinion, therefore, the proper construction to be placed on Section 20 must be that action must be initiated, either by filing of an application or by the court issuing notice suo motu, within a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed.
In view of the ratio as above, the Contempt Case is not maintainable as it is barred by limitation. The Contempt Case is, accordingly, dismissed.
(V.V.S. RAO, J)
_____________________ (B.N.RAO NALLA, J)
30.09.2011 KH
[1] (2001) 7 SCC 549
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the contempt case is barred by limitation under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 given the filing occurred two years after the alleged act.
Whether the Supreme Court's ratio in Pallav Sheth v Custodia applies to distinguish between suo motu and party-initiated contempt cases for limitation purposes.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Pallav Sheth v CustodiaReferred¶16
(2001) 7 SCC 549 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Pelluru Peddamunu Swamy
A. Prasad
V.V.S. Rao
B.N.Rao Nalla
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
