Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
U.DURGA PRASAD RAO, J.
Saragada Kalidas Reddy – Appellant
Versus
Dr.Manmohan Singh – Respondent
Contempt Case No.1564 of 2021
Decided on : 03-01-2022
Registration Act, 1908 - Section 22-A – Contempt case - Respondent filed a detailed counter contending, on receipt of legal notice from counsel for petitioner, respondent directed Revenue Divisional Officer and Tahsildar, to submit a detailed report in the matter to take up further decision on representations of petitioner’s mother for de-notification of subject lands - After ascertaining the report submitted by Revenue Divisional Officer and after considering facts and circumstances, representations of petitioner were disposed of in accordance with provisions of G.O. Revenue Department, in due compliance of orders of Hon’ble Court - There is no truth in contention of petitioner that respondents have not complied with the orders of Court - Whenever an assignment was granted to any person, it is done only after forming Sub-Division to the proposed extent of assignment duly carved from original survey number - But assignment cannot be issued for a part filed as unlike in the instant case - Whether or not respondents complied with order of this Court.
Finding of the Court:
Order on the basis of which the contempt case is filed does not depict that any straight direction was given to respondents to delete subject land from prohibited list of properties under Section 22-A of Registration Act. On other hand, this Court directed respondent authorities to consider representations of petitioner’s mother and also to consider facts and circumstances and then delete the subject land from the list of prohibited properties - It goes without saying that the direction was given to consider all relevant facts and circumstances and to pass an order on merits - Running the risk of pleonasm, if it were the intention of Court to give an unequivocal direction to respondents to delete subject property from prohibited list, order would have been in a different tone and tenor, that is not the situation here - In that context, it must be stated that respondents have duly complied with the direction in order in W.P - Respondents are not liable for contempt - Decision relied upon by petitioner is of no avail to them.
Result: Contempt dismissed.
ORDER :
The petitioner has questioned the disobedience of the order of this Court dated 19.11.2019 in W.P. No.18332 of 2019. This Court passed the following order:
2. The petitioner’s case is that pursuant to the said order the petitioner got issued legal notice dated 17.08.2021 through his counsel to the respondents to comply with the order in the writ petition, however, no action has been taken by the respondents intentionally and deliberately.
Hence, the contempt case.
3. The 2nd respondent filed a detailed counter contending thus:
(b) After ascertaining the report submitted by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam and after considering the facts and circumstances, the representations of the petitioner were disposed of in accordance with the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.279, Revenue (Assn.I) Department, dated 04.07.2016 in due compliance of the orders of the Hon’ble Court. Therefore, there is no truth in the contention of the petitioner that the respondents have not complied with the orders of the Court.
(c) The Revenue Divisional Officer also submitted detailed report in the matter after examining all the facts and made the following observations:
1. As per the copy of MDR of Madhurawada Village, the total extent of land measuring an extent of Ac.1366.40 Cts in Sy.No.336 of Mahdurawada Village stands classified as “Konda Poramboke”.
2. No assignment was granted in favour of Sri Saragada Kannarao Reddy for Ac.5.00 Cts in S.No.336P of Madhurawada Village at any point of time as contended by the petitioner Sri Saragada Kalidas Reddy.
3. In general, whenever any assignment is made, the name of assignee will be incorporated as assignee in all connected revenue records such as V.A.No.10(1) (not in force), adangals, IB Register etc., But, the name of the alleged assignee is not recorded/reflected in any of the revenue records either as an assignee or even as an encroacher in V.A.No.3 Adangal.
4. Whenever an assignment was granted to any person, it is done only after forming Sub-Division to the proposed extent of assignment duly carved from the original survey number. But assignment cannot be issued for a part filed as unlike in the instant case. But in the instant case, the petitioner claiming that assignment for an extent of Ac.5.00 Cts in Sy.No.336/P of Madhurawada Village of Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal and the total extent of Sy.No.336 is Ac.1366.40 Cts and without any sub-division it is not possible to grant assignment in such a huge extent of Ac.1366.40 Cts in Sy.No.336 of Madhurawada Village. And it is also not possible to identify or occupy the Ac.5.00 Cts without sub-division in the total extent of Ac.1366.40 cts.
5. The alleged assignee or his legal heirs were never in possession and enjoyment of any part of the land in S.No.336 of Madhurawada Village, Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal. As such, their names were also never reflected in any of the revenue records.
6. The contention of the petitioner that his father Sri Saragada Kannarao Reddy was granted assignment for Ac.5.00 Cts covered by Sy.No.336/P of Madhurawada Village vide Rc.No.243/1979, dt.30.06.1979 of the Tahsildar, Visakhapa
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
