Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 259 (AP)

Veesam Satyavamma v. M. V. Suryakala

2020-03-19

J.K.MAHESHWARI

body2020
ORDER : This contempt case has been filed for alleged non-compliance of the order, dated 01.08.2007, passed by the learned single Judge of this Court, in Civil Revision Petition No.3206 of 1988. 2. The Court, while passing the said order, brushed aside the first contention regarding existence of tenant of land would cover within the purview of surplus land, and while dealing with the second contention with respect to the nature of the lands, referring the definition specified under the provisions of the Act, has observed as under : “After hearing the counsel on both sides and on perusal of the material available on record, it is seen that as regards the first objection is concerned, the said question is no longer res integra as per the decision in State of Andhra Pradesh V. Mohd. Ashraruddin reported in AIR 1982 SC 913 . Even though the land is held by a tenant, necessarily it has to be computed to the holding of landlord. Coming to the other aspect, both the Tribunals, taking into consideration the provision under Section 3(d) of the Act and also the entry in the revenue accounts in regard to the lands mentioned as ‘double crop wet lands’ i.e., the petitioners have been raising one sugarcane and another paddy crops, held that the lands have to be necessarily treated as double crop wet lands. However, on a reading of the aforesaid definition, it contemplates that not only raising two crops, but also they should be raised with the use of water from a Government source of irrigation in any four fasli years within a continuous period of six fasli years immediately before the specified date. This later aspect goes to the very root of the case and necessarily the same has to be considered before the land is being treated as double wet crop land. It is not the case of the respondent that there is any government source of irrigation water is being used for raising the two crops. Therefore, in the absence of any source of government irrigation water is being used and the crop i.e., sugarcane and paddy, is being raised with such water, it cannot be said that the land can be treated as double crop wet land and necessarily it squarely falls out of the parameters as contemplated as ‘double crop wet land’ as stated above. In view of the same, necessarily the lands bearing S.Nos.277/2C, 267, 271/B, 266/B1, 266/C2, 151-2, 147, 145-1, 82/1, 145-3, 153, 94/1, 218, 55, 70 situated in various villages have to be treated only as dry lands but not double crop wet lands. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed and the matter is remitted to the primary Tribunal to treat the above lands stated in the survey numbers as dry lands and after such classification, holding of excess lands of the petitioners to be decided.” 3. Thereafter, the non-applicant kept the matter pending and passed the order on 18.11.2017. In the said order, the contention of the Authorized Officer has been recorded as under: “He reported that the same contention was not properly defended before the Hon’ble High Court in CRP No.3206/88 and the Hon’ble High court has also not examined with reference to the Law and reported that the above lands cannot be treated as “dry lands” instead of “double crop wet lands”. 4. Subsequently, the non-applicant, mentioning various facts and relying upon the stand of the Authorized Officer, contrary to the observations of the High Court, has observed as under : “On perusal of the above revenue records, it clearly shows that the classification and source of water in respect of the lands referred to Hon’ble High Court’s order in CRP No.3206/88, dt.1.8.2007 in respect of lands in Survey Nos.277/2C, 267, 271/B, 121, 173, 266/B1, 266/B2, 151/2, 147, 145/1, 82/1, 145/3, 153, 94/1, 218, 55, 70 situated in Pedapadu village are classified as wet/dry.” 5. Thereafter, referring some other judgment, a finding has been recorded as under: “As such, the lands in the above table vide Sl.No.1, 2P, 4,5,6,8,9,10,11,12,13,15,16 and 17 stand classified as wet and on which two crops per Fasli year have or a duffussal crop has been raised with the use of water from a Government source of irrigation within a continuous period of four to six fasli years immediately before the specified date of 01.01.1975.” 6. In fact, the directions, as issued by this Court, apparently indicate that the lands in S.Nos.277/2C, 267, 271/B, 266/B1, 266/C2, 151-2, 147, 145-1, 82/1, 145-3, 153, 94/1, 218, 55, 70 cannot be said to be the lands which can be treated as double crop wet lands. In fact, the directions, as issued by this Court, apparently indicate that the lands in S.Nos.277/2C, 267, 271/B, 266/B1, 266/C2, 151-2, 147, 145-1, 82/1, 145-3, 153, 94/1, 218, 55, 70 cannot be said to be the lands which can be treated as double crop wet lands. After allowing the revision and directing to the Primary Tribunal to treat the above lands, as stated in the said survey numbers, as dry lands, nothing remains to the non-applicant to apply her mind and to classify the said lands as dry lands or wet lands. But, the non-applicant has passed the order directing that the lands to an extent of 1.9966 standard holding equivalent to Acs.47.46 cents were declared as deemed surrendered surplus lands dividing through labels as dry and wet lands, contrary to the High Court order and directed to vest with the Government free from all encumbrances. 7. The aforesaid order was assailed before the I-Additional District Judge-cum-Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, who passed an order on 18.01.2018 setting aside the order passed by the non-applicant, in view of the order passed by the High Court. However, the non-applicant was supposed to pass an order, as directed by the High Court, to declare the lands in S.Nos.277/2C, 267, 271/B, 266/B1, 266/C2, 151-2, 147, 1451, 82/1, 145-3, 153, 94/1, 218, 55, 70 as dry lands. Even then, the matter was kept pending by the non-applicant and the order was not passed. 8. On filing the contempt petition and on issuing rule nisi, reply was filed by the non-applicant on 25.09.2018. In the said reply, a plea is taken that the contempt do not survive, on account of passing the order, dated 18.01.2018, by the I Additional District Judge-cum-Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, in Land Reforms Appeal No.2 of 2017, setting aside her order, dated 18.11.2017. It is said that the contempt is based on the noncompliance of the order, dated 01.08.2007. Therefore, the present contempt petition do not survive. It is to be noted here that after passing the order, dated 01.08.2007, in Civil Revision Petition No.3206 of 1988, the Court remitted the matter to the primary Tribunal to treat the above lands as dry lands. It is further directed that after such classification, the issue of having the excess land by the applicants be decided by the non-applicant. It is to be noted here that after passing the order, dated 01.08.2007, in Civil Revision Petition No.3206 of 1988, the Court remitted the matter to the primary Tribunal to treat the above lands as dry lands. It is further directed that after such classification, the issue of having the excess land by the applicants be decided by the non-applicant. It is not in dispute that after the order of the High Court, dated 01.08.2007, the non-applicant has passed the order on 18.11.2017. The non-applicant, relying upon the objections of the Authorized Officer, contrary to the decision of the High Court, specified in the table mentioned in the order held that some of the lands are dry lands and some of the lands are wet lands. It is to be noted here that after passing the order on 01.08.2007 and in view of the findings so recorded by the High Court, the non-applicant was supposed to treat the lands in S.Nos.277/2C, 267, 271/B, 266/B1, 266/C2, 151-2, 147, 145-1, 82/1, 145-3, 153, 94/1, 218, 55, 70 as dry lands, and treating such lands as dry lands, how much land in surplus is required to be decided. But, the said order was not passed, even after issuing of notice by the High Court and while filing the first reply, a plea is taken that the contempt petition do not survive and it is said that in view of the order, dated 18.01.2018, the contempt petition is liable to be dismissed. In fact, the order passed by the appellate Tribunal on 18.01.2018 indicates that the finding recorded by the non-applicant is contrary to the order of the High Court, however, it was set aside remitting back the matter to pass a fresh order. 9. When the matter came up for consideration before the High Court on 19.02.2020, two weeks’ time was granted to explain the observations made in the order by her. Thereafter, on 05.03.2020, an order was passed holding her guilty for deliberate and willful non-compliance of the order of the Court. After passing such order and fixing the date of today for punishment, additional reply has been filed along with the order, dated 16.03.2020, complying with the order of the Court, dated 01.08.2007. A perusal of the said order reflects that the order has been passed by some other Officer and not by the non-applicant. 10. After passing such order and fixing the date of today for punishment, additional reply has been filed along with the order, dated 16.03.2020, complying with the order of the Court, dated 01.08.2007. A perusal of the said order reflects that the order has been passed by some other Officer and not by the non-applicant. 10. In view of the foregoing facts, it is clear that during the time in which the non-applicant remained posted, the directions as issued by the Court have not been complied with and in the order, dated 18.11.2017, the finding so recorded by her is contrary to the directions of the High Court. On setting aside of the said order by the Appellate Tribunal on 18.01.2018, till her posting up to July, 2019, the compliance of the order of the Court has not been made. 11. In view of the foregoing facts, the conduct of the non-applicant reflects that the order passed on 01.08.2007 in Civil Revision Petition No.3206 of 1988 to record the lands S.Nos.277/2C, 267, 271/B, 266/B1, 266/C2, 151-2, 147, 145-1, 82/1, 145-3, 153, 94/1, 218, 55, 70 as dry lands, has not been complied with, as directed by the High Court. Even on setting aside of the said order by the appellate Tribunal on 18.01.2018, she remained posted up to July, 2019 for more than 1 ½ year, but treating the above lands as dry lands, the status of surplus has not been decided as directed by the Court. Therefore, it is a fit case wherein it can safely be concluded that the non-applicant has deliberately and willfully not complied with the order of the Court. Therefore, affirming the finding of holding her guilty, we propose to hear the non-applicant on the point of punishment. 12. The non-applicant present in the Court is heard on the question of punishment. It is stated by her that she is in employment, however, liberal attitude may be observed in the matter. 13. Therefore, affirming the finding of holding her guilty, we propose to hear the non-applicant on the point of punishment. 12. The non-applicant present in the Court is heard on the question of punishment. It is stated by her that she is in employment, however, liberal attitude may be observed in the matter. 13. Looking to the conduct as narrated hereinabove and the findings so recorded, it is clear that the order, dated 01.08.2007, passed in Civil Revision Petition No.3206 of 1988, has not been complied with up to 17 years, and while passing the order on 18.11.2017, contrary finding to the directions of the High Court has been recorded relying upon the plea of the Authorized Officer that the High Court has not decided the issue in reference to law in right perspective. When a notice was issued by this Court in the contempt petition, attempt was made to dismiss the contempt petition without carrying out the directions of the Court. When the Court passed an order to submit an explanation, it has not been filed. However, the Court vide order, dated 05.03.2020, held her guilty and fixed today for punishment. Looking to the aforesaid conduct of the non-applicant and in view of the discussion made hereinabove, it is a case of deliberate and willful non-compliance of the order of the Court, however, unconditional apology is not acceptable. Considering the fact that non-applicant is a female officer, she is punished till rising of the Court with a fine of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only). The amount of fine shall be deposited by tomorrow with the Registrar (Judicial) of the High Court. A copy of this order be sent to the GAD as well as the Vigilance Commission to take notice of the order of this Court. 14. Accordingly, this contempt case stands disposed of. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.