The High Court set aside a survey Panchanama that falsely recorded possession contrary to an earlier admitted fact. It directed restoration of land and imposed imprisonment on the Tahsildar for contempt of court.
Surveys and dispossession set aside; possession restored; costs imposed; Tahsildar sentenced to simple imprisonment with fine for contempt.
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.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO W.P.No.26705 of 2009 & Suo Motu C.C.No.612 of 2017
COMMON ORDER:
Petitioner has filed the Writ Petition questioning highhanded action of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in conducting survey in gross violation of the mandatory procedure contemplated under the A.P. Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 (for brevity ‘the Act’) and in illegally dispossessing the petitioner from the land without any notice and without following any due process of law.
THE BACKGROUND FACTS
THE SURVEY OF 5.6.2007
MSRJ W.P.No.26705 of 2009 & Suo Motu C.C.No.612 of 2017
2
possession of Ac.5.02 gts in Sy. No.139/2 in addition to his patta land of Ac.4.34 gts in Sy. No.139/78 and that possession of the said land of Ac.5.02 gts was taken over since he had no patta for it. The Village Revenue Officer also endorsed on the said Panchanama that he has taken over possession of Ac.5.02 gts of land. No procedure contemplated under the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905 was followed by the then 2nd respondent before dispossessing the petitioner from the extent of Ac.5.02 gts in Sy. No.139/2.
W.P.No.13210 of 2007
MSRJ W.P.No.26705 of 2009 & Suo Motu C.C.No.612 of 2017
3
notice was then issued for conducting survey on 05-06-2007 by the Mandal Surveyor, but since the petitioner was not resident in the village at that time, it was affixed to the notice board of the Gram Panchayat on 05-06-2007 and then a survey was conducted on 05-062007 in the presence of Village Revenue Officer, Mandal Revenue Inspector and other officials. He also stated that the boundaries of the petitioner’s land of Ac.4.34 gts in Sy. No.139/78 were identified and the excess area of Ac.5.02 gts in Sy. No.139/1 was taken in favour of Government and handed over to the Village Revenue Officer, Kagazmaddur village for safe custody.
ORDER DT.11.2.2009 IN W.P.13210 OF 2007
MSRJ W.P.No.26705 of 2009 & Suo Motu C.C.No.612 of 2017
4
SURVEY OF 13.6.2009
C.C.No.1030 of 2009
MSRJ W.P.No.26705 of 2009 & Suo Motu C.C.No.612 of 2017
5
SURVEY OF 14.9.2009
THE PRESENT W.P.
MSRJ W.P.No.26705 of 2009 & Suo Motu C.C.No.612 of 2017
6
MSRJ W.P.No.26705 of 2009 & Suo Motu C.C.No.612 of 2017
7
through the letter dt.07-09-2009 and through another letter dt.12-092009.
C.C.No.612 of 2017.
MSRJ W.P.No.26705 of 2009 & Suo Motu C.C.No.612 of 2017
8
CONTENTIONS OF COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER
CONTENTIONS OF GOVERNMENT PLEADER
MSRJ W.P.No.26705 of 2009 & Suo Motu C.C.No.612 of 2017
9
CONTENTIONS OF COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NO.S 3-22
THE CONSIDERATION BY THE COURT
MSRJ W.P.No.26705 of 2009 & Suo Motu C.C.No.612 of 2017
10
Minister and the District Collector, Medak District, have not been placed on record. So adverse inference is drawn against the respondent no.s 3-22 for this conduct and it is concluded that they were not in possession of the Ac.5.02 gts in Sy.No.139/2 before 5.6.2007.
MSRJ W.P.No.26705 of 2009 & Suo Motu C.C.No.612 of 2017
11
MSRJ W.P.No.26705 of 2009 & Suo Motu C.C.No.612 of 2017
12
the Panchanama, and excluding the other officers mentioned above, who also participated in the said survey, the respondents cannot wriggle out of the admissions contained in the Panchanama conducted on 05-06-2007. This action of 2nd respondent in the Writ Petition, who is respondent in the Contempt Case, is clearly mala fide .
Supreme Court deprecated the practice of Govt. officials trying to avoid implementing/circumventing Court orders. It observed:
“16. It has become a tendency with the government officers to somehow or the other circumvent the orders of court and try to take recourse to one justification or other. This shows complete lack of grace in accepting the orders of the Court. This tendency of undermining the Court’s order cannot be countenanced. This Court time and again has emphasised that in a democracy the role of the court cannot be subservient to administrative fiat. The executive and legislature have to work within the constitutional framework and the judiciary has been given the role of watchdog to keep
1 (2004) 8 SCC 683
MSRJ W.P.No.26705 of 2009 & Suo Motu C.C.No.612 of 2017
13
the legislature and executive within check. In the present case, we fail to understand the counter filed by the appellant before the Court. On one hand they say that all the cases of GPF have been processed and on the other hand they are not prepared to revoke the administrative order. This only shows a deliberate attempt on the part of the bureaucracy to circumvent the order of the Court and stick to their stand. This is clear violation of the Court’s order and the appellant is guilty of flouting the Court’s order.”
The instant case is a classic illustration of this attitude of the State
Govt. Officials.
Court reiterated :
“ 20. In exercise of its contempt jurisdiction, the courts are primarily concerned with enquiring whether the contemnor is guilty of intentional and wilful violation of the orders of the court, even to constitute a civil contempt. Every party to lis before the court, and even otherwise, is expected to obey the orders of the court in its true spirit and substance. Every person is required to respect and obey the orders of the court with due dignity for the institution. The government departments are no exception to it. The departments or instrumentalities of the State must act expeditiously as per orders of the court and if such orders postulate any schedule, then it must be adhered to. Whenever there are obstructions or difficulties in compliance with the orders of the court, least that is expected of the government department or its functionaries is to approach the court for extension of time or clarifications, if called for. But, where the party neither obeys the orders of the court nor approaches the court making appropriate prayers for extension of time or variation of order, the only possible inference in law is that such party disobeys the orders of the court. In other words, it is intentionally not carrying out the orders of the court. Flagrant violation of the court’s orders would
2 (2012) 1 SCC 273
MSRJ W.P.No.26705 of 2009 & Suo Motu C.C.No.612 of 2017
14
reflect the attitude of the party concerned to undermine the authority of the courts, its dignity and the administration of justice.
21. In Vinay Chandra Mishra , In re3 , this Court held that: (SCC p. 617, para 39)
“39. … judiciary has a special and additional duty to perform viz. to oversee that all individuals and institutions including the executive and the legislature act within the framework of not only the law but also the fundamental law of the land. This duty is apart from the function of adjudicating the disputes between the parties which is essential to peaceful and orderly development of the society. … dignity and authority of the courts have to be respected and protected at all costs.”
3 (1995) 2 SCC 584
MSRJ W.P.No.26705 of 2009 & Suo Motu C.C.No.612 of 2017
15
shall stand closed.
JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO
Date: 10-04-2017 Kvr
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a subsequent survey Panchanama is valid when respondents induced new possession of the land to contradict an earlier admitting record set aside by the court.
Whether government officials are liable for contempt when they attempt to circumvent court orders by drafting a fresh survey report contrary to natural justice principles.
Whether the relief of restoration of possession and costs is appropriate against the Revenue Department for overriding judicial directions.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
E.T. Sunup v. C.A.N.S.S. Employees AssnApplied¶81
(2004) 8 SCC 683 · Who else cites this
Maninderjit Singh Bitta v. Union of IndiaApplied¶89
(2012) 1 SCC 273 · Who else cites this
Vinay Chandra Mishra, In reApplied¶96
(1995) 2 SCC 584 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Petitioner
Respondent Nos.3 to 22
A.Narsimha Reddy
M.S. Ramachandra Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
