SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2001 Supreme(AP) 23

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : J.CHELAMESWAR, N.Y.HANUMANTHAPPA
G.Kalavathi - Appellant
Versus
C.Anand Rao - Respondent
Decided On : 01-19-01

Headnote:Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Sections 10, 12 - Contempt of Court - Court, in a contempt case, can issue certain directions to help administration of justice.

       Held : Viewed from any angle the respondents clearly disobeyed the orders of this Court and they committed contempt of Court. It is no doubt true that construction over the land in question has been taken place. But, what is the relief that has to be granted to the petitioner? No purpose would be served to the petitioner if there is a direction to hand over vacant possession of the property of the petitioner. The order of demolition of the buildings so constructed over the land in question and restituting the said land to the petitioner would cause great hardship to the respondents.

       To put an end to the litigation once for all and since the respondents have already made constructions over the land in question flouting the orders passed by this Court and no purpose will be served if the respondents are directed to be punished as some of them as on today either transferred or retired from service, we feel it appropriate to direct the respondents-authorities to pay compensation to the petitioner in the contempt case at the rate of Rs. 5,000. 00 per sq. yard as valued by the State itself in the application filed u/s. 8 of the A. P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act and numbered as L. G. C. No. 25 of 2000 or any other reasonable amount in lieu of directing the respondents to re-deliver possession of the land in question to the petitioner, in case the proceedings in L. G. C. No. 25 of 2000 go in favour of the petitioner. The question of maintainability, jurisdiction, propriety or competency to continue the case in L. G. C. No. 25 of 2000 in view of the earlier proceedings and observations made therein as to possession, whether adverse, permissive or unauthorized and title made therein including the directions to institute a civil suit to adjudicate the title to the property is kept open to be considered by the Special Court. However, implementation of this order is stayed for a period of six weeks from today.

N. Y. HANUMANTHAPPA, J, J.

( 1 ) THE contempt case in C. C. No. 1819 of 1999 has been filed by the petitioner against five official respondents and four unofficial respondents viz. , Sri C. Anand Rau, Chief Secretary to the Government of Andhra Pradesh, Sri Bhanwarilal, Hyderabad District Collector (Sri Anand Rau s name was later deleted from the cause title as not necessary party by order of the Court dated 29-3-2000), Sri C. Prabhakar, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Shaikpet Mandal, Hyderabad, Sri D. Sri Rama Murthy, Chief Engineer (Buildings), Roads and Buildings Dept. , Hyderabad, Sri M. Veera Bhadraiah, M/s. Mohan Reddy, Subrahmanyam, Ramesh Reddy and Sri Srinivas Rao, Hyderabad alleging that they disobeyed the orders of this Court in W. P. No. 11714 of 1986, dated 14-10-1998 and W. A. No. 742 of 1989, dated 14-9-1995 by making constructions of residential quarters for Ministers as they shall be summoned and punished.

( 2 ) THE Contempt Application in C. A. No. 1563 of 1999 has also been preferred by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents-contemnors to stop the construction over the land of the petitioner admeasuring Ac. 10-00 in S. No. 129/36/1 of Shaikpet village, Road No. 13, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, covered by the notice, dt. 20-6-86, pending disposal of the C. C.

( 3 ) THE facts that lead to the filing of the Contempt Case by the petitioner, in brief, are that she is the absolute owner and possessor of land admeasuring Ac. 10-00 in S. No. 129/36/1, being part of S. No. 403, Shaikpet village, Road No. 13, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. She purchased the said property under a registered sale deed, bearing document No. 279-1991, dated 11-2-1971, from one Mr. Papaiah. The said Papaiah had purchased the said property under a registered sale deed, bearing document No. 573/1963, dated 28-2-1963, from one Venkat Swamy. The said Venkat Swamy got the said property through a patta issued by the authorities way back in the year 1340 Fasli. The said property is bounded by North : Nala (Government land), South: Road No. 13, East: Land in S. No. 129/75 belonging to Hyderabad Industries Limited and West: Land belonging to Khazi Mohd. Hussain in S. No. 129/36. She leased out the said land in favour of M/s. Hyderabad Industries Limited under a registered lease deed, dated 27-6-1971. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Golconda Mandal, issued a notice under Section 6 of the A. P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905, dated 20-6-1986, bearing No. C/4360/1983, calling upon her lessee to vacate the land within three days from the date of receipt of the said notice. Assailing the said notice, she filed Writ Petition No. 11714 of 1986 seeking a declaration that the action of the Mandal Revenue Officer in issuing the said notice as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and further to direct the Officer not to interfere with her possession over the said land, which was allowed by this Court by an order, dated 14-10-1988. Aggrieved by the said order of the learned single Judge, the State filed Writ Appeal No. 742 of 1989, wherein the Division Bench of this Court while dismissing the appeal on 14-9-1995 directed the parties to maintain status quo for a period of three months from that day to take appropriate steps by the Government. In spite of the fact that this Court granted three months time to take appropriate steps by the Government, no steps were taken to establish their title by way of a civil suit. Since the said notice, dated 20-6-1986, was held to be illegal, she is in continuous enjoyment with absolute rights as the owner of the said property. As the matters stood thus, it was stated, respondent Nos. 1 to 5 herein have permitted the contractors i. e. , respondent Nos. 6 to 9 to undertake construction of residential quarters for the Ministers. On 19-11-1999 she visited the said property and to her surprise and shock she found that the construction of buildings was taking place over the land in question. On 20-11-1999 she got issued a telegrap




























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top