Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
M.Satyanarayana Murthy, J.
Naveen Kumar Agarwal, S/o. Late Prem Kumar Agarwal – Petitioner
Versus
K. Kamala – Respondent
Contempt Case No.602 of 2019
Decided On : 12-11-2021
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Sections 10 to 12 - Andhra Pradesh Registration Act - Rule 58 and 161 - Registering property - Claiming Writ of Mandamus - Petitioner filed claiming Writ of Mandamus declaring action of second respondent therein in not considering representation made by petitioner in which he raised objections under Rule 58 and Rule 181 of Rules framed Andhra Pradesh Registration Act requesting to hear petitioner before registering property admeasuring an extent of cents dry land vide another extent cents dry land vide another extent of cents dry land vide in Village District total extent of cents and another extent of cents dry land vide in Village as persons intended to register property are not persons they profess to be and involving rights of minors declare same as illegal arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice consequently direct respondents to hear petitioner before proceeding with registration of above said property.
Finding of the court :
In law declared by Hon’ble Apex Court and various High Courts obviously power is conferred upon Courts under Article 215 of Constitution of India whatever to be exercised keeping in mind limitation prescribed under Section 20 of Contempt of Courts Act - In present case though contempt within limitation but violation is wilful or not is to be examined - However as discussed above Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 caused substantial delay of more than eight months in taking up proceedings to comply with direction issued by this Court - In such case Court cannot take liberal approach and stern action is to be taken against Respondent Nos.1 & 2 who wilfully disobeyed order of this Court since they are conscious about direction issued by this Court and pleading any amount of ignorance about orders is not an excuse being a public officer while discharging public duty.
Result : Petition Disposed of
ORDER :
1. This contempt case is filed under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, by the petitioner – Naveen Kumar Agarwal against Smt. K. Kamala, erstwhile Sub-Registrar, Sompeta, Srikakulam and Mr. Tavatayya, present Sub-Registrar, Sompeta, Srikakulam.
2. The petitioner filed W.P.No.43025 of 2018 claiming Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the second respondent therein in not considering the representation made by the petitioner dated 22.11.2018, in which he raised objections under Rule 58 and Rule 181 of the Rules framed under Andhra Pradesh Registration Act, requesting to hear the petitioner before registering the property admeasuring an extent of Ac.-12 cents (dry land) vide Patta No.249 in Sy.No.255/1, another extent of Ac.0-64 cents dry land vide Patta No.857 in Sy.No.255/3, another extent of Ac.0-02 cents dry land vide Patta No.2351 in Sy.No.220/6 of Jalantrasompeta Village, Sompeta Mandal, Srikakulam District, total extent of Ac.1- 82 ½ cents and another extent of Ac.0-52 ½ cents dry land vide Patta No.235 in Sy.No.220/6 of Mogalikothuru Village as the persons intended to register the property are not the persons they profess to be and involving rights of minors, declare the same as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice, consequently direct the respondents to hear the petitioner before proceeding with the registration of the above said property.
3. The grievance of the petitioner is that, he made a representation dated 22.11.2018 to the second respondent raising objections under Rule 58 and 161 of the Rules framed under Registration Act, but no action was taken on the representation of this petitioner.
4. This Court passed an order on 12.12.2018, directing the second respondent –Sub-Registrar, Sompeta, Srikakulam District to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 22.1.2018 in accordance with the Rules framed under Registration Act. But the second respondent did not pass any order on the representation of the petitioner dated 22.11.2018 and nothing is communicated to the petitioner till the date of filing the contempt case.
5. While the matter stood thus, Respondent Nos. 3,7,8 & 9 in W.P.No.43025 of 2018 executed Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney in March, 2019. Even at that time, the second respondent did not pass any order on the objections/representation dated 22.11.2018, as directed by this Court on 12.12.2018. Taking advantage of the above development in March, 2019, the unofficial respondents are contemplating to alienate the property. All these things are possible only because the second respondent is disobeying the orders of this Court on 12.12.2018 in W.P.No.43025 of 2018. Thus, the second respondent disobeyed order of this Court dated 12.12.2018 in W.P.No.43025 of 2018 wilfully and deliberately and it amounts to Contempt of Court Act and finally requested to take appropriate action against the contemnors.
6. First respondent- Smt. K. Kamala filed counter affidavit, denying material allegations, inter alia contending that, the petitioner by suppressing the truth, filed W.P.No.43025 of 2018 and the present contempt case and that, in the present contempt case, the relief is sought only against the second respondent, however, the first respondent brought certain facts to the notice of this Court, for consideration.
7. The first respondent verified with the office staff of Sompeta, Srikakulam with regard to the particulars of the representation of the petitioner and came to know that the petitioner made two applications to the in-charge Joint-Sub Registrar/Senior Assistant, one on 31.10.2018 and another on 22.11.2018. Both the applications were received by the said in-charge Joint-Sub Registrar/Senior Assistant by name Ch. Govardhan Rao and he passed order on the earlier representation dated 31.10.2018 on the same date. Inspite of the same, he filed another representation on 22.1.2018 with same request and filed W.P.No.43025 of 2018 before this Court and
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
