Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 868 (AP)

Mamilla Sreeramulu v. Y. Ramachandra Reddy

2020-12-28

J.K.MAHESHWARI

body2020
ORDER : J.K. Maheshwari, J. (Through Video-Conferencing) 1. "This contempt case has been field alleging non-compliance of the order dated 12.10.2017 passed in W.P. No. 28955 of 2013. By the said order, while disposing of the writ petition, the learned single Judge observed as under: "Since the facts in the instant case are not clear, this Court is not in a position to conclusively give a finding with regard to the entitlement of the petitioners. But in view of the representation submitted by the petitioners on 10.02.2012, followed by a legal notice, dated 13.06.2013, the respondents 2 and 3 are directed to consider the said representation, verify the record and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of the order. If the petitioners are entitled for any compensation pursuant to the re-determination, the said compensation shall be paid within the said period." 2. On perusal of the aforesaid, it is clear that the representation submitted by the petitioners on 10.02.2012, followed by legal notice dated 13.06.2013, was required to be decided by respondents 2 and 3 in the writ petition, i.e., Special Collector (Land Acquisition), Galeru Nagari Sujala Shravanthi, Kadapa, YSR District, and the Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), SSP, Unit IV, Rajampet, Kadapa, YSR District. Against the said order, no appeal has been preferred though period of three years have elapsed, thus, the said order became final. 3. This contempt case has been pending since October, 2018. Notice to the respondents was ordered on 02.11.2018 and since then, more than two years have elapsed. On 17.02.2020, time was sought on behalf of the non-applicants to submit the compliance report and accordingly, while adjourning the matter, it was directed that if the compliance report has not been submitted, non-applicant No. 2 shall personally remain present before the Court on the next date of listing. Thereafter, when the matter came up on 02.09.2020, no compliance has been reported. In the interest of justice, again time was granted, with a direction that if compliance is not reported, non-applicant No. 2 shall remain personally remain present before the Court on the next date of listing. Thereafter, when the matter came up on 02.09.2020, no compliance has been reported. In the interest of justice, again time was granted, with a direction that if compliance is not reported, non-applicant No. 2 shall remain personally remain present before the Court on the next date of listing. Thereafter, when the matter came up on 14.10.2020, a detailed order was passed by this Court and the relevant portion reads as under: "After hearing the learned Counsel for the applicant as well as the non-applicants, this Court is of the considered opinion that the compliance has not been reported as per the directions issued by this Court. Non-applicants have not filed any compliance report as directed Non-applicant No. 2 is also not present. As per the directions of this Court, after deciding the representation and on re-determination, if any amount accrues, it ought to be paid to the petitioners within a period of eight weeks. From the date of the order, a period of three years has elapsed, though compliance is to be made within eight weeks. Such attitude of the officers ignoring court order and casual approach of the Government Advocate, apprising on the basis of the instructions, is not justifiable. At this stage, learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition prays for time to submit compliance report. In the interest of justice, two weeks' time is allowed to submit compliance report. Otherwise, non-applicants No. 1 and 2 shall remain present before this Court. Non-applicant No. 2 shall show cause as to why he has disobeyed the order of this court dated 02.09.2020. It is further directed that the present incumbents, if any, in the office of non-applicants No. 1 and 2, shall also remain present on the next date of listing. List on 04.11.2020 for further orders. On that day, in case the compliance is not reported or non-applicants are not present or response has not been filed by non-applicants, it may not be a ground for adjournment, and appropriate orders may be passed." 4. On perusal of the aforesaid, it is clear that if compliance is not reported on 04.11.2020 or the non-applicants are not present or response has not been filed by them, the same cannot be a ground for adjournment and appropriate orders would be passed. On perusal of the aforesaid, it is clear that if compliance is not reported on 04.11.2020 or the non-applicants are not present or response has not been filed by them, the same cannot be a ground for adjournment and appropriate orders would be passed. Even then, on 04.11.2020, no compliance has been reported and this Court, while issuing bailable warrant to non-applicant No. 1 who remained absent and directing that the present incumbents in the office be joined as non-applicants 3 and 4 in the contempt case, adjourned the matter to 27.11.2020. On 27.11.2020, again two months' time has been sought for by the learned Government Pleader representing the non-applicants for complying with the order of this Court, which was declined and in the interest of justice, a month's time was granted, by way of last indulgence, to comply with the order of the Court and in case, compliance is not reported, all the non-applicants were directed to remain personally present before the Court on the next date of listing. 5. Today, again, compliance is not reported and only non-applicants 2 and 4 are present, while non-applicants 1 and 3 remained absent on health grounds, without filing any application to that effect. 6. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicants as well as the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing on behalf of the non-applicants. 7. Learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition states that on 30.07.2020, a letter has been addressed by the Chief Commissioner, Land Administration, to the Special Chief Secretary to Government and Principal Secretary to the Government, Revenue Department, followed by reminder dated 30.10.2020, and on 22.12.2020, the matter has been placed before the Finance Department and is still pending for consideration. 8. Even as per the above oral statement regarding communications, in the opinion of this Court, the order of this Court has not been complied with. 9. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the above facts, it is clear that in the matter of seeking adequate compensation, the direction issued by this Court on 12.10.2017, which was required to be complied with within eight weeks, has not yet been complied with, as discussed hereinabove, and despite granting several opportunities in the interest of justice, the respondents are dragging the matter on one pretext or other and making unreasonable requests for grant of further time. 10. 10. In the above circumstances, in the opinion of this Court, the non-applicants are deliberately and wilfully not complying with the direction of this Court. Therefore, they are held guilty for non-compliance of the order dated 12.10.2017 passed by this Court in W.P. No. 28955 of 2013. 11. All the non-applicants are directed to remain personally present before this Court on 04.01.2021 for hearing on punishment. 12. List on 04.01.2021 for hearing and orders on punishment."