Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1063 (AP)

S. Anjaiah (died) v. Vinay Kumar

2007-10-30

G.S.SINGHVI

body2007
ORDER Per C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J. 1. This contempt case is filed to punish the respondents for willful violation of the judgment dated 01.3.2005 in Writ Appeal No.333 of 2005 and the directions contained in the order dated 05.12.2005 in C.C.No.1165 of 2005. 2. The contempt case was originally filed by Sri S.Anjaiah, the appellant in Writ Appeal No.333 of 2005 and petitioner in W.P.No.19224 of 2004. As Sri Anjaiah died during the pendency of the contempt case, petitioners 2 to 6 came on record as per the order dated 13.3.2007 of this Court as his legal representatives. 3. The facts in brief are narrated hereunder: S.Anjaiah (hereinafter referred to as "writ petitioner") filed W.P.No.19224 of 2004 for a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not paying compensation amount of Rs.88,69,320/- to him towards the value of the extent of 583 square metres equivalent to 694 square yards carved out of Survey No.385/386/I/P, 447, 448 and 449 in T.S.Nos.156, 157 and 158 Block-A, Ward No.165, situated at Amberpet village and Mandal, Hyderabad District, as arbitrary and illegal and for a direction to the respondents to pay the said amount with interest at 18% per annum. 4. The Executive Engineer (R & B), City Roads Division, Hyderabad, filed a counter-affidavit on behalf of respondents 4 and 5 in the writ petition (respondents 3 and 4 in this contempt case). In the said counter-affidavit it was admitted that an extent of 583 metres, equivalent to 694 square yards, in survey No.385, 386/1/P and 24, 47, 448 and 449 of Amberpet village (T.S.No.156, 157, 158, Block Ward No.165) was acquired for expansion of new bridge at Golnaka; that the Mandal Revenue Officer addressed a letter to the District Collector, Hyderabad, wherein it was stated as per the revenue records patta stands in the name of K.Jaggilal, son of late Manhoth Prasad and that the land is said to have been sold to the writ petitioner and there is no documentary evidence; that in his declaration filed by Jaggilal under Section 6 (1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, he showed this land as belonging to him and that the writ petitioner does not have any right to claim compensation, since he is not the lawful owner of the land. It was further stated that the Special Deputy Collector, LA (General) informed the office of the Executive Engineer through his letter dated 20.10.2001 to send proposals for payment of compensation of a sum of Rs.88, 99, 300/- and that in pursuance of the same, the estimate was revised by including the said compensation amount and the Chief Engineer, R & B, addressed a letter to the Special Secretary (R & B), to deposit tentative amount and requested to obtain opinion of the Commissioner of Land Revenue to initiate land acquisition proceedings by publishing necessary notifications and declarations under the Land Acquisition Act (for short 'the Act'). It was also stated in the counter-affidavit that the writ petitioner had no title over the land. 5. The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition (General) Hyderabad, also filed a counter-affidavit, wherein it was stated inter alia that the Land Acquisition Officer, and Superintending Engineer (R & B), Rural Circle, Hyderabad, estimated cost of the land at Rs.9,000/- per square yard and assessed the total compensation at Rs.88,99, 320/-, based on the basic market value of the land, which was obtained from the Sub-Registrar's office; that the said amount does not reflect the true value of the land under acquisition as it was far inferior in nature. It was also stated that since the requisitioning authority viz., Executive Engineer ( R & B), City Roads Division, Hyderabad, did not place the required funds, the Land Acquisition Officer, was not able to process the case. 6. By order dated 22.02.2005 a learned Single Judge of this Court allowed W.P.No.19224 of 2004 wherein he held the action of the respondents in taking over the possession of the land belonging to the petitioner without paying any compensation, as arbitrary, autocratic and violative of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. The learned Judge in paragraph 5 of the order has taken note of a letter addressed by Secretary to Government, Transport Roads and Buildings Department to the Government Pleader, Roads and Buildings, wherein it is mentioned that the issue of payment of compensation was under active consideration of the Government and that it may take some more time to finalize the issue. When the learned Government Pleader based on the said letter sought for time to deposit the amount, the learned Judge rejected the said request and granted the aforementioned relief. 7. When the learned Government Pleader based on the said letter sought for time to deposit the amount, the learned Judge rejected the said request and granted the aforementioned relief. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the respondents filed Writ Appeal No.333 of 2005. The Division Bench took note of the fact that the land belonging to the writ petitioner was taken over without initiating proceedings under the Act and held that there was inaction on the part of respondents in paying compensation amount to the owner. The Bench, however, opined that the learned single Judge instead of directing restoration of possession of land to the writ petitioner, ought to have directed the appellants to take out appropriate proceedings in accordance with law by passing an award on the basis of agreement arrived at between the parties as envisaged under Section 11 (2) of the Act and to pay the compensation. Having so held, the Division Bench, by taking note of the statement made by the learned counsel for the respondents (writ appellants), gave the following direction. "Learned counsel for appellants states that six weeks time be allowed to appellants to make payment of compensation. Accordingly, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order and direct the appellants No.4 and 5 to deposit the market value of the land at Rs.9,000/- per square yard along with 30% solatium on the land value, 12% additional market value and compulsory acquisition charges and all other statutory benefits as payable under the provisions of the said Act, within a period of six weeks from today, with the third appellant, and the third appellant on receipt of the said amount will pay the same to the respondent herein. Appellant No.3 is also directed to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law on the basis of agreement between the parties, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of amount from the appellants No.4 and 5. Appellant No.3 is also directed to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law on the basis of agreement between the parties, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of amount from the appellants No.4 and 5. As the respondent had agreed for parting with possession of land and prepared to accept compensation, legal formalities to be complied with by the appellants, under the provisions of Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act are hereby dispensed with." As the respondents failed to pay the money as directed in the writ appeal, the writ petitioner filed C.C.No.1165 of 2005 and the Division Bench having recorded the statement of the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition that the compensation and other dues will be paid within a period of two weeks, disposed of the contempt case as infructuous with a liberty to the writ petitioner to apply for its revival if the concerned authority fails to pay the amount of compensation within the time specified (two weeks). As the respondents failed to deposit the amount as undertaken in the said contempt case, the writ petitioner filed the present contempt case. 8. Sri K.Damodar Reddy, Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition (General), Hyderabad, (respondent No.2 in contempt case) filed counter-affidavit in which he admitted taking possession of the land belonging to the writ petitioner. He, however, mentioned that only an extent of 265 square metres of patta land was covered by the acquisition and that the remaining land was classified as belonging to the government. It is further stated that the Deputy Director, Survey and Land Records, Hyderabad, finalized the sub-division records for 265 square metres of land located in T.S.Nos.157/2 and 158/2, Block-A, Ward 165 of Amberpet village and that the said extent was taken as true area for the purpose of passing the award. He also stated that the requisitioning department deposited the value of the said land and the draft notification and declaration were published on 07.7.2005 and 08.7.2005 respectively in Andhra Pradesh Gazette apart from publications made in the newspapers on 28.7.2005 and 30.7.2005. After issuing notices, award enquiry was held in which the writ petitioners and three others filed their claims. He also stated that the requisitioning department deposited the value of the said land and the draft notification and declaration were published on 07.7.2005 and 08.7.2005 respectively in Andhra Pradesh Gazette apart from publications made in the newspapers on 28.7.2005 and 30.7.2005. After issuing notices, award enquiry was held in which the writ petitioners and three others filed their claims. On 09.12.2005 an award was passed for an amount of Rs.51,966/- and since the proceedings under the provisions of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 are pending, the compensation was deposited in the civil court under Section 31 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act. It is further mentioned that as the land was situated at the river bed of Musi, its market value was assessed at only Rs.59,966/- and the sum of Rs.88, 99, 320/- requisitioned by the Land Acquisition Officer did not reflect the true market value of the land. It was further stated that the said amount was deposited by requisitioning authority only towards its tentative cost and in view of the award passed, fixing the market value at Rs.51,966/- including solatium, additional market value and compensation for damages, the petitioners are not entitled to any amount in excess of the said amount of Rs.51,966/-. 9. Sri M.Rama Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the respondents are guilty of blatant violation of the final order passed in writ appeal and the order passed in C.C.No.1165 of 2005 based on the undertaking by the learned Government Pleader that the compensation and other dues will be paid to the writ petitioners within a period of two weeks. He further submitted that the respondents compounded their action by passing a fresh award and that their action is in utter violation of the said orders passed by this Court. 10. Opposing the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri C.V.Mohan Reddy, learned Advocate General submitted that the writ petitioner did not come to this Court with clean hands by falsely claiming that he is the owner of 583 square metres (694 square yards of land) while the actual extent of land owned by him and used for construction of bridge by the respondents was only 265 square metres. He further contended that the writ petitioner, in collusion with certain officials of the Revenue and Engineering Department of the Government, got the value bloated up far beyond actual market value of the land and therefore he played fraud on the government and the court. He further contended that the High Court being Court of Record has a duty to correct the mistakes and prevent fraud from being perpetrated and that the respondents having detected fraud the corrective action was taken by passing award after duly assessing true market value of the land. He submitted that as the writ petitioner secured the order from this Court by playing fraud, the respondents acted bona fide in not paying the amount as directed in the writ appeal and that this action does not constitute contempt. In support of his contention, the learned Advocate General relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Hamza Haji V. State of Kerala and another1. He also cited the judgment in M.M. Thomas V. State of Kerala and another. 11. We have given our serious consideration to the respective submissions. It is not in dispute that the land belonging to the writ petitioner was taken possession and utilized for constructing a bridge across river Musi. It is also not in dispute that Special Deputy Collector estimated tentative value of the land at Rs.88,99,320/-. In Writ Appeal No.333 of 2005 filed against the order of the learned Single Judge who directed redelivery of possession, the counsel (Government Pleader for R & B) appearing for the respondents (appellants in the writ appeal) requested for six weeks' time to make payment of compensation. In the order, which was reproduced herein above while referring to the said request, the Division Bench specifically mentioned Rs.9,000/- as the value per square yard to be deposited as market value of the land along with 30 percent solatium and 12% additional market value apart from other statutory benefits payable to the writ petitioner. A review petition filed by the respondents seeking review of the said order ended in dismissal, with the refusal of learned judge, who heard the review petition to condone inordinate delay in filing the review petition. The said order of the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.333 of 2005 has thus attained finality. A review petition filed by the respondents seeking review of the said order ended in dismissal, with the refusal of learned judge, who heard the review petition to condone inordinate delay in filing the review petition. The said order of the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.333 of 2005 has thus attained finality. But, as noted above the contention of the learned Advocate General is that the order of the Division Bench, which is a result of the fraud played by the writ petitioner, is not enforceable, non- compliance with such an order does not constitute contempt. 12. In Hamza Haji (1 supra) on which learned Advocate General placed heavy reliance, the appellant before the Supreme Court, claimed to have purchased an extent of 22.25 hectares of land and he disposed of almost the entire property either by way of assignments in the years 1971 and 1972 or by way of gift to his brother and he was thus not left with any property acquired through the said purchase. After the enactment of Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971, the appellant made a claim by way of O.A.No.247 of 1979 before the Forest Tribunal, Manjeri, seeking exemption under Section 3 (2) of the said Act and in the alternative claimed that even if the land purchased by him was private forest, as it was held by him as owner under his personal cultivation, he is entitled to exemption from vesting under Section 3 (3) of the Act. The said claim was allowed by the Forest Tribunal. The appeal filed by the State against the said order was dismissed by the High Court of Kerala on 8.3.1983 and the said order has, thus, become final. Later the State of Kerala filed a petition before the Forest Tribunal seeking review of that order and the review petition was dismissed on the ground that the said order got merged in the order of the High Court. The appellant then filed O.P.No.2926 of 1989 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ of Mandamus directing the State and Forest Officials to restore the land to him in implementation of the order of the Forest Tribunal. The said petition was allowed on 28.8.1990 by the High Court. On 01.01.1991 the State filed a petition to review the order dated 8.3.1983 of the High Court. The said petition was allowed on 28.8.1990 by the High Court. On 01.01.1991 the State filed a petition to review the order dated 8.3.1983 of the High Court. Along with review petition the State filed a petition to condone delay of eight years in filing the review petition. The said petition was dismissed by the High Court and a Special Leave Petition filed against the said order was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 03.10.1994. 13. As the land was not restored, the appellant filed a contempt case registered as CCC No.274 of 1997 in the Kerala High Court. As the State and Forest Authorities produced a mahazar and plan purporting to hand over the land, the contempt case was closed by the High Court. As the attempt to hand over the forest land evoked adverse public opinion, the State filed another petition to review the order dated 18.11.1983. Another review was filed in the O.P. filed by the appellant for issuing a writ of Mandamus for restoration of the land. The third review petition was filed to review the order in CCC No.274 of 1997 and another petition was filed to review the order in MFA No.328 of 1981. Two writ petitions in public interest were also filed for a writ of Mandamus to the State not to assign, release or surrender the 20 acres of land to the appellant. 14. On the aforementioned facts, the High Court held that the appellant secured an order from the Forest Tribunal by playing fraud on it and since fraud vitiates entire proceedings, it was a fit case where the High Court should exercise its jurisdiction invoking Article 215 of the Constitution of India and set at naught, the order of the Forest Tribunal found to be vitiated by fraud. Accordingly, the High Court directed the State to take back Ac.20-00 of land and the said decision was challenged before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court affirmed the said decision of the Kerala High Court. Accordingly, the High Court directed the State to take back Ac.20-00 of land and the said decision was challenged before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court affirmed the said decision of the Kerala High Court. In paragraph 25 of the judgment, the Supreme Court held under: "Thus, it appears to be clear that if the earlier order from the Forest Tribunal has been obtained by the appellant on perjured evidence, that by itself would not enable the Court in exercise of its power of certiorari or of review or under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, to set at naught the earlier order. But if the court finds that the appellant had founded his case before the Forest Tribunal on a false plea or on a claim which he knew to be false and suppressed documents or transactions which had relevance in deciding his claim, the same would amount to fraud. In this case, the appellant had purchased an extent of about 55 acres in the year 1968 under Document No.2685 of 1968 dated 2-6-1968. He had, even according to his evidence before the Forest Tribunal, gifted 5 acres of land to his brother under a deed dated 30.1.1969. In addition, according to the State, he had sold, out of the extent of 55.25 acres, an extent of 49.93 acres by various sale deeds during the years 1971 and 1972. Though, the details of the sale deeds like the numbers of the registered documents, the dates of sale, the names of the transferees, the extents involved and the considerations received were set out by the State in its application for review before the High Court, except for a general denial, the appellant could not and did not specifically deny the transactions. Same is the case in this Court, where in the counter-affidavit, the details of these transactions have been set out by the State and in the rejoinder filed by the appellant, there is no specific denial of these transactions or of the extents involved in those transactions. Therefore, it stands established without an iota of doubt as found by the High Court, that the appellant suppressed the fact that he had parted with almost the entire property purchased by him under the registered document through which he claimed title to the petition schedule property before the Forest Tribunal. Therefore, it stands established without an iota of doubt as found by the High Court, that the appellant suppressed the fact that he had parted with almost the entire property purchased by him under the registered document through which he claimed title to the petition schedule property before the Forest Tribunal. In other words, when he claimed that he had title to 20 acres of land and the same had not vested in the State and in the alternative, he bona fide intended to cultivate the land and was cultivating that land, as a matter of fact, he did not have either title or possession over that land. The Tribunal had found that the land was a private forest and hence has vested under the Act. The Tribunal had granted relief to the appellant only based on Section 3 (3) of the Act, which provided that so much extent of private forest held by an owner under a valid registered document of title executed before the appointed day and intended for cultivation by him and that does not exceed the extent of the ceiling area applicable to him under Section 82 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, could be exempted. Therefore, unless the appellant had title to the application schedule land and proved that he intended to cultivate that land himself, he would not have been entitled to an order under Section 3 (3) of the Act. It is obvious that when he made the claim, the appellant neither had title nor possession over the land. There could not have been any intention on his part to cultivate the land with which he had already parted and of which he had no right to possession. Therefore, the appellant played a fraud on the Court by holding out that he was the title-holder of the application schedule property and he intended to cultivate the same, while procuring the order for exclusion of the application schedule lands. It was not a case of mere perjured evidence. It was suppression of the most vital fact and the founding of a claim on a non-existent fact. It was done knowingly and deliberately, with the intention to deceive. Therefore, the finding of the High Court in the judgment under appeal that the appellant had procured the earlier order from the Forest Tribunal by playing a fraud on it, stands clearly established. It was done knowingly and deliberately, with the intention to deceive. Therefore, the finding of the High Court in the judgment under appeal that the appellant had procured the earlier order from the Forest Tribunal by playing a fraud on it, stands clearly established. It was not a case of the appellant merely putting forward a false claim or obtaining a judgment based on perjured evidence. This was a case where on a fundamental fact of entitlement to relief, he had deliberately misled the Court by suppressing vital information and putting forward a false claim, false to his knowledge, and a claim which he knew had no basis either in fact or on law. It is therefore clear that the order of the Forest Tribunal was procured by the appellant by playing a fraud and the said order is vitiated by fraud. The fact that the High Court on the earlier occasion declined to interfere either on the ground of delay in approaching it or on the ground that a second review was not maintainable, cannot deter a Court moved in that behalf from declaring the earlier order as vitiated by fraud." 15. In the instant case the plea of the respondents is that the writ petitioner in collusion with some of the officials in the Revenue and R & B Department bloated up the market value of the land and that according to the respondents this act on the part of the writ petitioner constitutes fraud. As held by the Supreme Court in M.M.Thomas (2 supra) the High Court being Court of Record and in its exercise of jurisdiction under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, it has power to undo a decision that has been obtained by playing fraud on the Court. In the light of the judgment in Hamza Haji (1 supra) and in order to find out whether the material on record placed before us conclusively proves the alleged fraud on the part of the writ petitioner, it is necessary to examine the relevant facts of the case and documents filed before us. 16. By the time the present contempt case was taken up for hearing, order dated 1.3.2005 passed in Writ Appeal No.333 of 2005 has become final with the dismissal of review petition. 16. By the time the present contempt case was taken up for hearing, order dated 1.3.2005 passed in Writ Appeal No.333 of 2005 has become final with the dismissal of review petition. Before the filing of the present contempt case, Contempt Case No.1165 of 2005 filed by the writ petitioner earlier was closed on 5.12.2005 by a Division Bench of this Court of which one of us (the Chief Justice) was a party, on the submission made by the learned Government Pleader that the compensation and other dues would be paid to the writ petitioner within a period of two weeks. It is significant to notice at this stage that within four days after contempt case No.1165 of 2005 was closed, award was passed on 9.12.2005 determining the compensation at Rs.51,966/- for the extent of 265 square metres of land and a reference was made to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 on the purported ground that there is a dispute relating to title over the acquired land. The said sum of Rs.51,966/- appeared to have been deposited in the Civil Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act. When the respondents failed to make payment in accordance with the said undertaking, the present contempt case was filed. 17. When the contempt case came up on 8.9.2006, the Division Bench prima facie felt that respondent No.2 committed contempt as he failed to disburse the amount deposited by respondents 3 and 4 and it therefore, ordered notice to the said respondents. On 11.10.2006 respondent No.2 was present in person and admitted his failure to comply with the order dated 1.3.2005 passed in Writ Appeal No.333 of 2005. As he showed reluctance to implement the said order, order in the contempt case was reserved and the contemnor was directed to be present on 16.10.2006 to which date the case was adjourned for pronouncement of orders. On 16.10.2006, before pronouncement of orders by the Bench, the learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents requested the court to have a fresh look at the entire matter. On 16.10.2006, before pronouncement of orders by the Bench, the learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents requested the court to have a fresh look at the entire matter. Having regard to the submission made by the learned Advocate General that there was collusion between the landowner and some of the revenue and R & B officials in fixing the market value of the land, the Bench observed that it would like the Government to take exemplary punitive action against the persons who are said to have played fraud with public money. 18. It is at this stage that the respondents have taken the initiative to unearth the alleged fraud committed in fixation of the market value. The State Government issued G.O.Rt.No.3824 General Administration (Special-A) Department Dated 2.7.2007, appointing Sri Prabhakar D.Thomas, IAS, Principal Secretary to the Government (Accommodation), General Administration Department as Enquiry Officer to enquire into the matter of payment of compensation with the following terms of reference: a. to raise issues of specific mis-demeanour. b. To identify all officers responsible for the valuation exercise and whether the valuation was strictly per basic value register; to fix responsibility on prsons for each lapse identified. c. To what extent are R & B officials responsible for the lapses. On 12.7.2007 the enquiry officer submitted his report. As could be seen from the said report, a copy of which was filed by the respondents during the hearing of the contempt case, the enquiry officer went through the relevant files and drew his conclusions from what he had observed from the files. As certain remarks made by the enquiry officer against Lawyers including the Government Pleaders and the comments made against Courts and Judges were considered indecorous by the Bench, the enquiry officer filed his affidavit in which he explained that he never intended to blame the Lawyers, Courts or Judges and tendered unconditional apology for the same. 19. As certain remarks made by the enquiry officer against Lawyers including the Government Pleaders and the comments made against Courts and Judges were considered indecorous by the Bench, the enquiry officer filed his affidavit in which he explained that he never intended to blame the Lawyers, Courts or Judges and tendered unconditional apology for the same. 19. A perusal of the report would show that the enquiry officer on going through the file opined that the piece of land belonging to the writ petitioner which was utilized for construction of the bridge was not useful either for residential or commercial purpose and the revenue officials, namely; Special Revenue Inspector, the Deputy Tahsildar and Special Deputy Collector, obviously under the pressure exerted by a former minister, tentatively estimated the market value of the land for 694 square yards (580 square metres) at Rs.89 lacks on the basis of the Basic Value register maintained by the Sub-Registrar's Office. The entire emphasis was on the alleged fact that the land belonging to the writ petitioner is located in the surplus water course of Musi and is not fit for being used for residential or commercial purposes. 20. The enquiry officer in his concluding part of the report observed that due to the indifference and lethargy prevalent in the government departments it is very easy for unscrupulous elements to manipulate the matters especially at the lower levels and a thorough probe into the affairs might reveal a criminal conspiracy to hoodwink both the Government and the Courts. 21. On the basis of the above mentioned enquiry report, the learned Advocate General contended that a blatant fraud was committed in fixation of market value, but we have not felt convinced to accept this contention. The findings given or comments made by the enquiry officer can at best be termed as his personal opinion arrived at on the basis of his perusal of the record. Neither any officer who was involved in the fixation of the market value nor the legal representatives of the writ petitioner, who died by that time, were given notice or an opportunity to put forth their case. Therefore, such reports cannot be treated as documents conclusively establishing fraud. Neither any officer who was involved in the fixation of the market value nor the legal representatives of the writ petitioner, who died by that time, were given notice or an opportunity to put forth their case. Therefore, such reports cannot be treated as documents conclusively establishing fraud. The conclusions drawn by the enquiry officer in his report can only be taken as his opinion, but on the basis of such unilateral conclusions we are not prepared to give a conclusive finding that the writ petitioner played fraud. The ratio in Hamza Haji (1 supra) cannot be applied to the present case because unlike in the former case the factum of fraud on the part of the writ petitioner is not established in the instant case. It is neither the case of the respondents that the fixation of higher market value was based on fabricated or forged documents produced by the writ petitioner nor we are convinced that orders passed by this Court in Writ Appeal No.333 of 2005 and Contempt Case No.1165 of 2005 were as a result of fraud played by him on this Court. He had merely claimed relief on the basis of the market value fixed by the officials concerned. 22. Whether the true market value of the land was Rs.9,000/- per square yard or less is an issue which needed to be determined by a competent court of law. But, for reasons which it is unnecessary for us to delve into at this stage, the respondents have not availed that opportunity. By giving undertakings more than once they invited orders from this Court rendering themselves liable to pay compensation at the value initially fixed. Even if the earlier fixation of the market value is incorrect, that by itself cannot be termed as an act of fraud by the writ petitioner and the respondents have to squarely blame themselves for the same. 23. The only area where the writ petitioner appeared to have mislead the respondents was in making a claim for an extent of 583 square metres (694 square yards) as against 265 square metres of land which alone evidently belongs to him and which was acquired by the respondents. 23. The only area where the writ petitioner appeared to have mislead the respondents was in making a claim for an extent of 583 square metres (694 square yards) as against 265 square metres of land which alone evidently belongs to him and which was acquired by the respondents. We are making this observation for the reason that though specific allegations in this regard were made in the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.2 and the learned Advocate General emphasized this aspect during his arguments, this averment relating to the actual extent of area acquired is neither specifically controverted in the reply affidavit nor during the arguments of Sri M.Rama Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. We therefore, accept the version of the respondents that the actual area involved in the acquisition is only an extent of 265 sq.metres (312.15 sq.yards) in T.S.No.157/2 and 158/2, Block-A, Ward-165 of Amberpet village and the petitioners are entitled to receive compensation only for the said extent of the land. 24. It is the bounden duty of the State and its officers to obey the orders passed by the Courts of competent jurisdiction. If there was any semblance of doubt about the correctness of the tentative cost arrived at by the Special Deputy Collector there was no reason why respondents have not immediately sought review of the orders of this Court. The conduct of the respondents shows that they have given repeated undertakings before this Court to avoid passing of adverse orders and that at a later point of time they have turned round by coming out with a specious plea that the writ petitioner played fraud. While the respondents miserably failed to prove the allegation of fraud against the writ petitioner, we are wholly convinced that it is the respondents who slept over the matter for unduly long time and sought to come out with jejune ground that the writ petitioner played fraud. This plea, in our view is raised in despair without being supported by any material whatsoever. Therefore, we are not inclined to accept the contention of the learned Advocate General that we should ignore the orders dated 1.3.2006 and 5.12.2005 passed by this Court in Writ Appeal No.333 of 2005 and Contempt Case No.1165 of 2005 respectively and exonerate the respondents 1 and 2 of the charge of contempt. Therefore, we are not inclined to accept the contention of the learned Advocate General that we should ignore the orders dated 1.3.2006 and 5.12.2005 passed by this Court in Writ Appeal No.333 of 2005 and Contempt Case No.1165 of 2005 respectively and exonerate the respondents 1 and 2 of the charge of contempt. Since, respondents 3 and 4 have already deposited the compensation amount they are not liable for and are accordingly discharged from the charge of contempt. 24. In the result, we hold that the respondents 1 and 2 have willfully failed to comply with the order dated 01.3.2005 in W.A.No.333 of 2005 and the order dated 05.12.2005 in C.C.No.1165 of 2005. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it expedient to give an opportunity to the said respondents to purge contempt by paying to the petitioners compensation @ Rs.9,000/- per square yard besides all other statutory benefits for an extent of 265 square metres of land, within a period of two weeks from today. 25. If the non-petitioners failed to make payment within two weeks, the petitioners shall be free to apply for revival of contempt case. In that event, the Court would decide the nature of punishment to be imposed on the respondents on the strength of the findings contained in this order.