CC/2308/2017 of M/S GODAVARI COOPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY LTD Vs B.R. MEENA, I.A.S., HYD AND 2 TOHERS on 31 December 2021

FRIDAY ,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

PRESENT

HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH [CHANDRA SHARMA]

AND

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE [N.TUKARAMJI]

CONTEMPT CAS ENO i 2308 0F [2017]

(Contempt Case Under Section 10 lo 12 of Contempt [of ][Courts ][Act ][to ][punish]the Respondent herein for, willfully [violating, ][the ][order ][of ][the ][H ][igh ][court ][dated ][13-]O2-2O21 in W.A.No. 1118 of 1996 as confirmed [in ][SLP ][No ][s ][10413 ][to ][10415 of]2001, dated 23-11-2001 and [also contempt ][case ][No. ][654 ][ol ][2002 ][dated ][24-12-]2003.)

Between:

1M/s Godavari Cooperative [House ][Building Society ][Ltd, ][Represented- ][by ][its]President Sri P.Sudhakar Reddy [S/o. ][Late Ramachandra Reddy, ][aged ][79 years]Occ. Retd. Govt. Servant, [86-4, ][Kalyan Nagar,Hyderabad ][- 500 038]President Sri P.Sudhakar Reddy [S/o. ][Late Ramachandra Reddy, ][aged ][79 years]Occ. Retd. Govt. Servant, [86-4, ][Kalyan Nagar,Hyderabad ][- 500 038]

...PETITIONERYPETITIONER

AND

L B.R. Meena, l.A.S., Special [Chief Secretary ][to ][the Government ][Revenue]tesin.illiOdpirtmenqstate [Government oi Telangana,Secretariat, ][Hyderabad.]tesin.illiOdpirtmenqstate [Government oi Telangana,Secretariat, ][Hyderabad.]

....Respondent / Respondent [No. ][1]

2. Mrs.K.Chandrakala, [Revenue Divisional ][officer, ][secunderabad, collectorate,]Hyderabad.Hyderabad.

3. Mr.S.Ramulu, [Tahsildar, Shaikpet,Hyderabad.]

...Respondents / ProPosedContemnors l.A. NO: 1 oF 2017[(APPL. ][NO: ][1][ 027 ][0F ][20][ 17\]

Petition under Section [151 CPC ][praying ][that ][in ][the ][circumstances ][stated ][in]the affidavit filed [in ][support ][of the ][petition, ][the ][High ][court ][may ][be ][pleased ][pleased]to grant leave to [the ][petitioner herein ][to ][implead ][the ][proposed respondents ][as]Coitemnor Nos.2 [and ][3 ][in ][the ][above ][contempt proceedings, ][in ][the ][interest ][of]justice.

Counsel for the Petitioner: [SRt. ][PRABHAKAR ][SRIPADA]

counsel for the [Respondents: ][THE ][ADDITIoNAL ][ADVOCATE GENERAL]

The Court made the [following: ][ORDER]

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF [JUSTICE][ SATISH][ CIIANDRA ][STIARMA]AND

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE [N. ][TUKARAMJI]

C.C.No.23O8 of 2OL7

ORDER: fper [rr'. ][ao n'b1e the ][chief ][Jrstice satish chandrd ][starmat]

The present contempt [petition ][is ][arising ][out of ][the ][order]dated 13.O2.2001 [passed ][by ][the ][Division Bench ][in ][W.A.No.1 118 ][of]t996.

The undisputed facts of the [case ][reveal ][that ][the ][petitioner]herein, M/s.Godavari Co-operative [Housing ][Building ][Society]Limited, was claiming title and [possession ]in [respect ][of ][land]admeasuring Acs.10.00 in Survey No.l29 l3a I 1 of situated [in]Shaikpet Village, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. [The ][undisputed ][facts]also reveal that there was a difference of opinion [between ][the ][two]Judges of the Division Bench and the matter [was ][referred ][to ][a]third Judge. The matter was accordingly [placed before ][the third]Judge and the third Judge has [passed ]an order on [25.11.1997]giving his opinion on the points of difference. The matter [was]thereafter placed before the Division Bench for [fina1 ]order. [The]Division Bencti has passed the final order and the [same ][is]reproduced as under:-

"As there was unanimitA in the [uielu ]tdken [by ][att ][the ][three]judges that G.O.Ms.No.942, Reuenue (Q) Department, dated 23-6'1983, and the consequential proceedings in [Rc. ]No. F4/ 3049/ [82,]dated 15-12-1982 and also the asstgnment of the land to [the]ANRIC in Proceedings Rc.F4/3O37/81, dated 15-12-1982, are notin accordance with laut, theA are quashed and the [parties ][are]giuen tibertg to establish their rights in a proper ludiciat forum.Regarding possession, Paruatha Rao, J opined that the mateialsought to be relted upon by the respondents tn support of theircontention with regard to the title, possession and aduersepossession has to be proved and established. While keeping thoseguestions open, the learned Judge agreed with me in directing the status quo to be maintained in respect of the tand.s in question tillfinal [determination ]of the Etestion of title and. possession is nad.ebg a proper forum. As per the majoritg opirlion, both the parties aredirected to maintain slalus quo in respect of the lands in questiontill tfLe contrauention is resolued bg a proper forum.final [determination ]of the Etestion of title and. possession is nad.ebg a proper forum. As per the majoritg opirlion, both the parties aredirected to maintain slalus quo in respect of the lands in questiontill tfLe contrauention is resolued bg a proper forum.

Coming to the plea of the respondents seeking a directiotl tothe Gouemment to rerylaise the suit schedule properties to themat a reasonable market rate though the Gouemment rejected th.eirapplication in pursuance of tLLe order, dated 29-8-2000, we stiu feetthat as the dispute is pending for seueral gears in the courtstDtthout frnality and there is further possibility of drag@ng on theproceedings for some more decades in- the euent of either of tleparties approaching the court of lau to establish their ights, to puta quietus to the issue more so in the light of the orders passed bgthe Gouernment from time to time tn favour of uaious personsuthere under itlegal occupations were reguLarised, ue direct theGouemment to reconsider ,he issue and consider the feasibilitg ofregularising the lands in question to the respondents at areasonable market rate, iJ necessary bg inviting the representatiuesof the respondent-societies for negotiations to arriue at thereasonable market ualue. It is not a pious hope but wish of thiscourt to do complete [justice ]between the parties. We are fortified inour uiew bg a decision of the Supreme Court in B.C. CHATURVEDIus. UNION OF INDIA (()995) 6 SCC 749)) uherein their LordshipsheLd "High Cour7, being a Court of Plenaryyrisdiction, has inherent pou.)er to do 'completeJt-tstice' [betueen the ][parties ][similar ][to ][Supreme]Court's power under Afticle 142 of the Constitution"

To the same ellect are the [judgm.ents ]of thts court [in]BADRIJKA COLLEGE OF C & A [us. ]SIA?E [OF ][A.P (1997 ][(1) ][ALD]282 [(FB)) ]imd D. SATYANARAYANA [us. ][N.T. ][RAMA ][RAO ][(AIR 1988]A.P. 144 [(FB))]

In the resutt, the uit appeals are [allowed ][to ][the ][ertent]indicated aboue. tYo costs. ["]

The aforesaid order makes [it ][very clear ][that ][no ][finding ][in]respect of possession [was given ][by ][the ][Division Bench, ][the ][parties]were given liberty to establish [their ][rights ][in a ][proper Judicial]Forum and the Government [was directed ][to ][re-consider ][the ][issue]and consider the feasibility [of ][regularising the lands ][in ][question in]

favour of the alleged land owners at a reasonable market rate byinviting the representatives of the respondents,/ societies therein fornegotiations. After the judgment was delivered, a contempt petitioninviting the representatives of the respondents,/ societies therein fornegotiations. After the judgment was delivered, a contempt petitioni.e., C.C.No.654 ol 2OO2 was preferred alleging violation of theorder of status quo. It was decided on 24.12.2OO3.

The Division Bench, while disposing of the contempt petition,has passed the following order:-

'The auements made in the affid.autt filed. in support of theContempt Case, undoubtedlg, disclose that there u)as some scramble forpossession on 8-6-2002 on wh.tch d.ate admittedlg ilte second. respond.entherein is stated to haue instructed. to get the eisting board.s repalnted.notifging the land to be gouernment rand. The question whether the said.land belongs to the Gouemment or to tFLe petitioner-societg is get to beadjudicated in a properlg constituted proceeding. Euen in the counteraffidauit and rejoinder filed by tlle ilrst respond.ent_Distrtct Collector, thereis no specific plea or categoical assertion to the effect that tlrcGouemment, at atr points of ttme, ,tas in possession and. continues to be inpossession of the said land. Alt that is stated is that there ruere boardseisting in the said. land duly notifging tnt the land. belongs to theGouemment and that the same board.s u.,tere renouated_ and re-witten. Thefact [remains ]that the said. land is an open land uhere no constructtons ofwhatsoeuer nqture haue been rnade bg the petittoner_societg and therespondents except one or ttro huts alleged to haue been raised bg thepetitioner-societA as is eutd.ent from the report of the AduocateCommtssioner to Luhich no objections haue been filed. by respond.entslnthe circumstances, it cannot besatd that the respond.ents aretrtpossession of the said. land.

Hautng regard to the nature of controuersg and. the allegationslevetled bg the petitioner-societg against the respondents, it is not possibleto puntsh the respondents on the ground. that theg haue committed angto puntsh the respondents on the ground. that theg haue committed angcontempt cs such. It ts not ctearlg auered. in the a,ffi.dauit f.led. in supportof the Contempt Case as to who were the actuaL persons aueged. to hauetrespassed into the said. tand. It is true that there is a uague allegation thatone Ramaiah came from the office of the second. respondent to the said.trespassed into the said. tand. It is true that there is a uague allegation thatone Ramaiah came from the office of the second. respondent to the said.land under the instructions of respondents 1 and. 2 and. they haue erectedtt o boards on 8-6-2e02 and. threatened that ciminal action would bett o boards on 8-6-2e02 and. threatened that ciminal action would beinitiated if the boards are remoued. from the lands. The satd Ramaiah isnot impleaded as a partg respond.ent. It is not possibre to auard. angpunishment to the respond.enfs Lnless a clear case ts mad.e out as to LUhoangpunishment to the respond.enfs Lnless a clear case ts mad.e out as to LUhowere those indiuiduals who alleged to haue intntded into the possessiotl oJ.

the satd land. In the circumstances, u)e are not inclined [to ][proceed ]further and punish the respondents for hauing committed anA contemPL

We are, loweuer, required to notice that this Court euen [whtle]ordering notice in this Contempt Case on [12.06.2002 passed ]further [orders]to the foltowtng e.fJect:

"Status quo granted earlier bA a Diutsion [Bench ]of this Court tu continue."

Conclusion

That order continues to hold the Jield [euen ][as ][on ][todaA. ][We have]alreadg noticed the decision of [the ][Diuision ][Bench' ][in ][uthich ][it ][is ][clearly]hetd that both the [parties ][are ][required ][to ][maintain ][sratus ][quo ][in ][respect ][of]tlLe satd. tand till the controuersA [is ][resolued ][by ][a ][proper ]forum. [Thus, ][it ][is]not open for ang of the [parties to ][uiolate ][tlle ][orders ][passed ][bg ][a ][Auision]Bench of this Court.

In the result, we hold [that ]the [status ][quo ][eisting ][as ][on ][the date ][of]the decision of the Diwsion [Benclv ][in ][all ][respects, ][including ][the]possession, is required to be [maintained ][and ][none ][of ][the ][parties ][sho,lt ][in]whdtsoeuer manner [be ][permitted ][to ][d'lter ][the ][mture ][of ][tle ][lard ][in]whatsoeuer manner [and ][they ][shall abide ][bg ][the ][order ][of ][status ][quo]granted. by the Duision [Bench ][unttl ][the ][issue ][is ][resolued ][in ][a ][properly]constituted [proceeding. ][There shall ][be ][an ][order accordingly']

Th.e Contempt Case [is ][accordinglg ][disposed of ]["]

It is true that in [the ][contempt ][petition, ][it ][has been discussed]that as per the [Commissioner's ][report, ][the ][society ][was ][in]possession of the land. But, [the fact ][remains ][that ][the ][Division]Bench, while delivering [the ][main ][judgment, ][has ][not ][observed]anylvhere that [the ][society was ][in ][possession' ][In ][fact, ][there ][was ][a]claim and a counter [claim ][in ][respect ][of ][possession ][and ][in ][those]circumstances, the [Division Bench ][has ][directed ][the ][parties ][to]maintain status [quo. ][Hence, by ][no stretch ][of ][imagination' ][it ][can ][be]presumed that the averment [in ][respect of possession ][of the ][society]was given a stamp [of ][approvai. ][The ][order ][of the ][Division ][Bench]nowhere [gives ]a [stamp ][of ][approval ][in ][respect of ][the ][averment ][made]by the society [in ][respect of ][possession ][in ][the ][main ][writ ][appeals']

Learned counsel for [the ][appellant ][has ][argued ][before ][this]Court that the [respondents ]/ [State ][has ][passed ][an ][order ][dated]

06.06.2017 on account of which the contempt petition has beenfiled and in the aforesaid order, it has been held that the StateGovernment is in possession of the property.filed and in the aforesaid order, it has been held that the StateGovernment is in possession of the property.

This Court has carefully gone through the aforesaid order.The necessity of passing the aforesaid order arose only because ofthe direction given by the Division Bench to the State Governmentto re-consider the issue and consider the feasibility of regularisingthe lands in question. Because of this direction, representationswere preferred by the society and the order dated 06.06.2017reveals that it was the society, who submitted representation forregularising the lands before the State Government, and in thatbackdrop, the order has been passed by the State Government.The facts of the case further reveai that in spite of there being aliberty granted to the society, the society has opted not to file anycivil suit so far and therefore, this Court is of the consideredopinion that by passing the order dated 06.06.2017, the StateGovernment has certainly not committed any contempt in thepeculiar facts and circumstances of the case.

To,

The contempt case is accordingly closed.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall standclosed. There sha1l be no order as to costs.

SD/.K.SRINIVASA RAOJOINT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

1. Sri B.R. Meena, l.A.S., Special Chief Secretary to the Government Revenue(Assn.lll) Department,State Government of TelanganarSecretariat, Hyderabad.(Assn.lll) Department,State Government of TelanganarSecretariat, Hyderabad.

2. Smt.K.Chandrakala, Revenue Divisional OfficerrSecunderabad, Collectorate,Hyderabad.Smt.K.Chandrakala, Revenue Divisional OfficerrSecunderabad, Collectorate,Hyderabad.

3. Sri.S.Ramulu, Tahsildar, ShaikpetyHyderabad.

4. One CC to SRl. PRABHAKAR SRtpADA,Advocate IOPUC]

5. Two CD Copies

6. One Spare Copy

HIGH COURT

DATED:31 11212021

ORDERCC.No.2308 of 2017

CLOSING THE CONTEMPT CASE

rrE [SiAiA]tl17 [JAN ][2m2]3jlor.l'*.isryir [c]