In this contempt case, the petitioner alleged that respondents entered his land and placed a board claiming government ownership. The court held that placing a board did not equate to dispossession, thus no wilful violation occurred, and the contempt petition was dismissed.
The Contempt Case was closed with no punishment against the respondents.
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 RAMESH RANGANATHAN
CONTEMPT CASE NO.48 OF 2012
ORDER:
The order of this Court, violation of which is alleged in these contempt proceedings, is the order in W.P. No.31125 of 2011 dated 03.12.2011 whereby this Court, while leaving it open to the Official respondents to take necessary action in accordance with law, if they so choose, for eviction of the petitioner from the subject land, made it clear that the petitioner shall not be dispossessed till then. In the affidavit filed in support of the present contempt case, the petitioner would assert that, on 17.12.2011, the 2nd respondent along with his subordinates had unlawfully entered into the subject land, and had installed a board thereat to the effect that the land belonged to the Department of Intermediate Education; subordinates of the 3rd respondent were also present at the site on that date and, on enquiry, stated that they were acting under the instructions of respondents 1 to 3; it is only thereafter, on 20.12.2011, that a notice was issued under Section 7 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act in response to which the petitioner had submitted his reply to the 2nd respondent on 05.01.2012 and, by the time the present contempt case was filed on 19.01.2012, no order was passed under Section 6 of the Act.
While counter affidavits have been filed by the 1st and 3rd respondents, no counter affidavit is filed by the 2nd respondent, and the petitioner’s specific allegation that the 2nd respondent and his men had entered on the petitioner’s land and had put a board thereon, on 17.12.2011, stands uncontroverted. In his reply affidavit, the petitioner
would assert that proceedings dated 06.01.2012, allegedly passed under Section 6 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, is ante-dated; the said proceedings were allegedly placed on the subject lands without causing service thereof on the petitioner; the petitioner had given his address, for communication, in his reply to the notice issued to him under Section 7 of the Act; and the very fact that the respondents had referred to the said reply in their order under Section 6 of the Act, but had chosen not to effect service of the said order on the petitioner, at the address specified in his reply, was proof that the said order was ante-dated. While the petitioner would assert that he continues to remain in possession, it is the case of the respondents that possession of the land was taken by them on 07.01.2012 after an order, under Section 6 of the Act, was passed on 06.01.2012.
The order of this Court required the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner except in accordance with law including the provisions of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act. Exercise of jurisdiction, under the Contempt of Courts Act, is only on a clear case of wilful and deliberate violation of the order of this Court being made out. The degree of proof required, to punish the respondents under the Contempt of Courts Act, is proof beyond reasonable doubt. In the absence of sufficient evidence on record to establish that the proceedings dated 06.01.2012 is ante- dated, this Court would not be justified in proceeding further to punish the respondents under the Contempt of Courts Act.
As the incident which took place on 17.12.2011 stands uncontroverted, it may well necessitate an inference being drawn by this Court that the 2nd respondent had, along with his men, entered on the petitioner’s land and had placed a board thereupon. While such
an act on the part of the 2nd respondent may, indeed, be blameworthy, it cannot be said to be in wilful and deliberate violation of the orders passed by this Court as what this Court had injuncted the respondents from doing is to dispossess the petitioner. Placing a name board on the petitioner’s land cannot be equated to dispossessing him from the land in question. I see no reason, therefore, to proceed further against the respondent under the Contempt of Courts Act.
The Contempt Case is, accordingly, closed.
Date: 06.03.2012 ____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J
MRKR
2 issues framed by the court
Whether placing a name board on the petitioner's land amounts to a wilful and deliberate violation of a court order prohibiting dispossession.
Whether the proceedings under the A.P. Land Encroachment Act were instituted without jurisdiction of law.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
THE PETITIONER
RESPONDENT 1
RESPONDENT 2
RESPONDENT 3
RAMESH RANGANATHAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
