A 75 year old widow has been struggling for getting her name incorporated in the municipal records. Her deceased husband secured a civil court decree on 06-08-1992 in O.S.No.26 of 1992 from the Court of the Principal District Munsif, Anakapalli, declaring him as the rightful owner of a house property and a consequential permanent injunction against the Anakapalli Municipality. Later, the petitioner also obtained a decree for mandatory injunction against the Municipality to incorporate her name in the municipal records in O.S.No.365 of 1995, dated 08-11-2011 from the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Anakapalli.

2. Justice still eluded her. The respondents though lost in the courts have successfully succeeded in thwarting the decrees with impunity. Hapless petitioner approached this Court and obtained a Mandamus on 21.01.2010 to respect the decree. Respondents are still unmoved and have adopted a defiant attitude. Situation therefore warranted the petitioner to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court.

3. Facts in a nutshell.

4. Petitioner’s husband, who served as Medical Officer in Anakapalli Municipality, was allotted a house bearing D.No.4-10-41/1 under a hire purchase scheme. He was retired from service in the year 1987. He had cleared all hire purchase installments payable to the Municipality even before his death i.e., on 13.02.1993. Since a dispute had arisen, he filed a suit in O.S.No.26 of 1991 in the Court of Principal District Munsif, Anakapalli and the same was decreed on 6.08.1992 declaring him as owner of the said property and consequential permanent injunction, in the following terms.

1. Declaring that the plaintiff is the rightful owner to the schedule property in consequent of the allotment made by the defendant;

2. That the defendant and his men and servants are permanently restrained from ever dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property; and

3. That the defendant do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.1446/-towards costs of the suit.

5. After the death of the petitioner’s husband, the municipality was deducting an amount of Rs.290/-towards hire purchase charges from the family pension. The petitioner therefore filed O.S.No.265 of 1995 in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Anakapalli for recovery of an amount of Rs.10,440/-being the amount collected from her pension, and for permanent injunction from deducting any amount form her pension and to mutate her name in the municipal records in respect of the said property. The suit was decreed partly on 8.11.2001 in the following terms.

1. That the suit be and the same is hereby decreed partly by issuing mandatory injunction directing the defendant to effect mutation in the revenue records in respect of schedule property in the name of plaintiff as owner of the schedule property and by granting permanent injunction restraining the defendant and his men and servants from deducting the amount of Rs.290/-or any other amount from the pension of plaintiff in respect of schedule property from the date of filing of the suit by way of rent or damages and the suit claim is dismissed with regard to recovery of Rs.10,440/-from the defendant which was collected from the pension of plaintiff; and

2. That each party do bear their own costs.

6. By virtue of the aforesaid decrees not only the ownership right of the petitioner has been declared but also there is a mandatory direction to mutate the concerned records in her name. The aforesaid decrees have attained finality.

7. The respondents failed to carryout the decrees though a duty was cast upon them. They did not mutate the petitioner’s name for no valid reason. The petitioner therefore invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and obtained a writ of Mandamus in W.P.No.12820 of 2005, dated 21-01-2010 in the following terms.

“In view of the facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that once Anakapalli Municipality – respondent No