JAYACHANDRA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal under S. 15 of the Letters Patent filed against the judgment of our learned brother, Seetharama Reddy, J. in Contempt Case No. 153 of 1983. The facts which give rise to this appeal are as follows :- The first respondent herein filed writ petition No. 4294 of 1983 questioning the land acquisition proceedings initiated by second and third respondents namely the District Collector, Prakasam District and the Tahsildar, Parchur, Prakasam District, pursuant to a notification under S. 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act issued on 13-4-1983. The first respondent filed W. P. M. P. No. 5878 of 1983 along with the writ petition seeking stay of all further proceedings including taking of possession, on which our learned brother passed an order on 24-5-1983 which is to the following effect : "all further proceedings including taking of possession of about Ac 9-60 cents in S. No. 25/10, Annambhotlavari Palem, Prakasam District, be and hereby are stayed pending further orders on this petition. " The above order was communicated on 25-5-1983 to both the respondents. The first respondent however, got issued a fresh notification under S. 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act on 9-6-1983. In respect of the same land and the second respondent in violation of the above orders of this Court, has recorded as though the possession was taken on 1-8-1983. The second notification dt. 9-6-1983 was also challenged in another Writ Petition No. 6799/83 and Jeevan Reddy, J. admitted Writ Petition and stayed further proceedings. The first respondent filed Contempt Case No. 153 of 1983 for punishing the two respondents namely the Dist. Collector and the Tahsildar, for violating the orders of this court passed in W. P. M. P. No. 5878 of 1983 in W. P. No. 4294 of 1983 dt. 24-5-1983. Our learned brother, Seetharama Reddy, J. in an elaborate order held that the two officers have wilfully disobeyed the orders of this Court, which amounted to contempt of Court and accordingly convicted them. He, however, let off both of them by administering a warning that any recurrence in future will be dealt with more severely. The officers who were held thus guilty, have not preferred any appeal. The learned Judge further proceeded and gave a direction that the land should be restituted back to the first respondent namely, the owner, as the justice of the case requires to restore the possession ante as it obtained on the day when the stay was granted on 24-5-1983. Questioning this part of the order the appellants, who claim to be the beneficiaries claiming that they were given pattas and were put in possession of the respective plots, have preferred this appeal. It may be mentioned that these appellants were also impleaded as party-respondents in Contempt case. The main submission on behalf of the appellants is that neither the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act nor the Rules framed by the High Court under the said Act contain any specific provisions under which the Court while punishing the contemners, can grant the consequential relief of restoration of possession of the land to the applicants in the Contempt Case. The submission on behalf of the respondent, on the other hand is that the Court has inherent power to grant such relief.

( 2 ) THE principal question, therefore, that arises for our consideration in this appeal is whether this Court can grant the consequential relief of restoration of possession, while disposing of a Contempt Application. We also had the advantage of hearing the learned Advocate-General and he supported the plea that the Court can grant such relief.

( 3 ) SRI P. Ramachandra Reddy, the learned counsel for the appellants, submits that the rights of the third parties have intervened, and in such a situation the third parties, even if they are considered to be trespassers, can be dispossessed only in accordance with due process of law and that the relief of restoration cannot be granted by the Court while di

Click Here to Read the rest of this document