CC/1150/2009 of Mohammed Jani Miya Vs Mr Rajeswar Tiwari on 31 December 2009

ORDER:

This contempt case is filed alleging wilful disobedience of theorders of this Court, dated 13.10.2008, passed in W.P.No.19364 of2008.

The petitioner filed W.P.No.19364 of 2008 seeking a writ ofMandamus declaring the action of respondent Nos.1 to 3 i.e., revenueauthorities, in assigning the land to an extent of Ac.1.10 guntassituated in Survey No.59 of Kondapur Village, SherilangampallyMandal, Ranga Reddy District, belonging to him, to the unofficialrespondents, in spite of the prohibitory orders in E.P.No.3 of 2006 inO.S.No.77 of 2005 on the file of the learned II Additional District Judge,Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, as illegal and arbitrary.

This Court, while ordering notice before admission on06.09.2008, directed the parties to maintain status quo and thereafter,as the respondents could not file counter, in spite of granting sufficienttime, through order, dated 13.10.2008, issued Rule nisi and extended the status quo orders granted earlier, until further orders. Alleging thatin violation of the said orders of status quo, respondent Nos.1 to 3 havetransferred the subject land in favour of the unofficial respondents, whostarted making constructions therein, the petitioner filed the presentcontempt case.

The petitioner states that he filed O.S.No.77 of 2005 on the fileof the learned II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District atL.B.Nagar against the fourth respondent and some others for specificperformance of an agreement of sale, dated 12.09.1995, in respect ofthe subject land, which was decreed on 27.10.2005. That later on, healso filed E.P.No.3 of 2006 for execution of the said decree, whereinthe executing Court through its order, dated 30.06.2006, prohibited thejudgment debtors from transferring or changing the nature of the plaintschedule property, until further orders.

In response to the notice issued in the contempt case, thesecond respondent, namely, the Tahsildar, Serilingampally, RangaReddy District, filed counter affidavit in the matter. Similarly, theunofficial respondents i.e., respondent Nos.5 to 9, also filed a detailedcounter.

It is stated in the counter filed by the second respondent that theland to an extent of Acs.57.09 guntas situated in Survey No.59 ofKondapur is classified as ‘Gairan Sarkari’. That when an applicationwas filed by the fourth respondent for issuance of pattadar pass booksin respect of the land to an extent of Acs.2.00 in the said surveynumber, the same was rejected by the then Joint Collector by order,dated 30.01.2001. That subsequently a notice, dated 28.02.2001,under Section 7 of the A.P.Land Encroachment Act, 1905 was issuedto the fourth respondent, for which, he also submitted his explanationand even final order, dated 12.05.2005, was passed under Section 6 ofthe A.P.Land Encroachment Act, 1905. It is stated that later on the landwas allotted to the persons, who lost their lands under road widening atKothaguda Junction as alternative land, in lieu of compensation andeven Land Transfer Certificates were also issued to the allottees, andwere also put in possession. It is therefore stated that much prior to the status quo orders and the decree in O.S.No.77 of 2005, theGovernment has resumed possession of the subject land way back on12.07.2005 under a cover of panchanama and re-allotted the same torespondent Nos.5 to 9 and 55 others whose lands were acquired in theprocess of road widening at Kothaguda Junction and that respondentNos.1 to 3 have not violated the orders passed by this Court.

Respondent Nos.5 to 9 also filed a detailed counter denying theallegations made by the petitioner and taking similar stand as that ofthe Government. It is stated that the fourth respondent filed O.S.No.331of 2006 on the file of the learned II Additional District Judge, RangaReddy District at L.B.Nagar against respondent Nos.1 to 3 fordeclaration of his title, wherein respondent Nos.5 to 9 and 55 othersgot themselves impleaded and the matter is still pending. It iscategorically stated that on 14.10.2005, the Revenue Divisional Officer,Chevella Division, Ranga Reddy District issued, a notice underSection 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for acquisition of thelands of respondent Nos.5 to 9 along with 55 others, as the said landsare needed for the purpose of road widening of Kothaguda Junction atKM 11/2004 on Intermediate Ring Road and has taken possession ofthe same. In lieu of acquisition of their lands, the Revenue DivisionalOfficer, Chevella, issued proceedings, dated 17.12.2005, allotting thesubject land and has even issued Land Transfer Certificates. Thereupon, they started making constructions in their respective landsand therefore, it is stated that they have not violated the orders of thisCourt.

The petitioner filed reply affidavits to the counters filed by therespondents reiterating the averments made in the affidavit filed insupport of the contempt case.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learnedGovernment Pleader for Revenue appearing respondent Nos.1 to 3and the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.5 to 9. In spiteof service of notice, none appears for the fourth respondent.

At the outset, it is to be noted that this Court, while entertaining W.P.No.19364 of 2009, on 06.09.2008, directed the parties to maintainstatus quo and later on, extended the status quo order until furtherorders vide orders, dated 13.10.2008, which reads as under:

“Though status quo is ordered by this Court on06.09.2008 and sufficient time is granted, no counteraffidavit is filed. Hence issue Rule nisi. Call for records. Notice returnable in four weeks. The status quo orderearlier granted shall stand extended until further orders.

Post the writ petition after filing counter.”

It is clear from the above order that left with no other option, thisCourt extended the status quo order granted on 06.09.2008, as therespondents did not file counter in the matter, in spite of grantingsufficient time. Alleging violation of the said order, the petitioner filedthe present contempt case.

The main contention advanced by the petitioner in this contemptcase is that in spite of prohibitory orders of the executing Court and thestatus quo orders of this Court, respondent Nos.1 to 3, in utter violationof the same, have transferred the subject land in favour of respondentNos.5 to 9, who started making constructions therein. After takingnotice in the contempt case, the official respondents as well as theunofficial respondents filed detailed counters in the matter bringing onrecord substantial information and stating that much prior to the statusquo orders passed by this Court on 13.10.2008, the subject land wasresumed by the Government on 12.07.2005 by way of panchanamaand re-allotted the same to respondent Nos.5 to 9 and 55 others, in lieuof acquisition of their lands for widening of road at KothagudaJunction. Be it noted, except respondent Nos.5 to 9, the otherbeneficiaries are not parties to the writ proceedings and theGovernment is not a party to the civil suit filed by the petitioner. In thecircumstances, it cannot be said that the respondents have violated theorders of this Court, much less wilfully.

Conclusion

However, as this Court passed the status quo orders in the writpetition in the absence of the counters being filed by the respondentsand in view of the fact that the writ petition is still pending, this Court isof the considered opinion that without expressing any opinion on merits, it would be appropriate to close the contempt case with adirection to the parties to urge all the contentions in the main writpetition itself and they are at liberty to make a mention before thelearned Judge for early hearing of the matter.

With this, the contempt case is closed.

Date: 31.12.2009VGB

____________________

N.V. RAMANA, J.