Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 156 (AP)

Pinjari Kareem Sabu v. J. Sivasankar Naik

2022-02-08

M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

body2022
ORDER : 1. This Contempt Case is filed under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to punish the respondent herein i.e. Sri. J. Sivasankar Naik, Tahsildar, C-Belagal Mandal, Kurnool District, as per the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, for willful and deliberate disobedience of the order, dated 16.09.2021 passed by this Court in W.P. No. 20370 of 2021, alleging that this Court issued a direction in the above Writ Petition declaring the endorsement in Rc. A/08/2021, dated 13.07.2021 as illegal, arbitrary, and consequently set aside the same, while, directing the 4th respondent in the Writ Petition, to pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law for mutation of petitioner's name in the revenue records for the land in Sy. No. 340/1 admeasuring an extent of Ac. 11.73 cents, strictly adhering to the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971. 2. After receipt of the order, the petitioner allegedly made a representation, dated 13.10.2021 to the District Collector, Kurnool Revenue Divisional Officer, Kurnool and the Tahsildar, C. Belagal Mandal, the contemnor herein Guduru Sub-Division, Kurnool, through registered post duly enclosing a copy of the order in W.P. No. 20370 of 2021. Receipt of the same was acknowledged by the respondent/contemnor herein and other officers. Though the order was received, the respondent/contemnor did not implement the order, but issued an endorsement, dated 03.11.2021 in Rc. B.144/202 in utter disregard of the direction issued by this Court, which amounts to willful and deliberate disobedience of the order of this Court, requested to take appropriate action to punish the respondent/ contemnor for disobeying the orders of this Court under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. 3. The respondent/contemnor filed reply affidavit to the counter affidavit, alleging that the petitioner earlier filed W.P. No. 20370 of 2021 for not issuing Pattadar Passbook for the land in Sy. No. 340/1 admeasuring an extent of Ac. 11.73 cents in Kothakota village fields, C. Belagal Mandal, Guduru Sub-Division, Kurnool District and issued an endorsement rejecting the claim of petitioner vide Rc. B.144/2021, dated 03.11.2021. He also submitted that the application of petitioner submitted through meeseva bearing Application No. RMU-012106923123 was got enquired strictly adhering to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Right in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971. B.144/2021, dated 03.11.2021. He also submitted that the application of petitioner submitted through meeseva bearing Application No. RMU-012106923123 was got enquired strictly adhering to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Right in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971. A notice in Form-VIII was generated and issued to all the persons, whose names are entered in the Record of Rights, who are interested in or affected by the amendment and to any other persons to be interested therein, as to why the amendment should not be carried out under Section 5(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass books Act, 1971. The said notice was also published in Tahsildar's Office, Mandal Parishad Development Officer's Office, Grama Sachivalayam and also made tom-tom in Kotha Kota village. 4. It is further contended that in response to the notice, the Superintendent, Inspector Auditor, Waqfs, Collectorate, Kurnool District in his Letter F. No. 54/Waqfs/KNL/2021, dated 25.10.2021 has stated that the Masjid land in Sy. No. 340 admeasuring an extent of Ac. 12.07 cents of Kothakota village belongs to Waqfs Department. The details of the land published in A.P. Gazette No. 43-A, dated 24.10.1963 at S. No. 3140 were also submitted. He further submitted that as per the revenue records also i.e. RSR of Kothakota village, the land stands registered in the name of Erladinne Mazid under T.D. No. 464. The Ryotwari pattas issued by Inam Deputy Tahsildar are not binding on the waqf land under Inam Abolition Act and does not change the character of the Waqf. The said land is Waqf and in-alienable, the third parties have no rights to claim the land in question and finally requested not to issue any Pattadar Passbooks to any third parties for the subject land in question and also requested for issue of Pattadar Passbooks in the name of Masjid, Erladinne H/o Kothakota Village, C. Belagal Mandal. 5. It is further submitted that keeping in view the directions issued by this Court, the petitioner verified the revenue records thoroughly and as per RSR (Re-Survey Settlement Register), the classification of the land is “Inam Dry” and in Pattadar Column, the name of pattadar is mentioned as the “MANAGER FOR THE TIME BEING OF EARLADINNE MASK.” As per online Adangal the Pattadar is “Erladinne Masjid.” 6. The Village Revenue Officer, Earladinne H/o Kothakota village, has also enquired in his village and ascertained that the land in Sy. No. 340-1 admeasuring an extent of Ac. 11.73 cents belongs to the petitioner. 7. Hence, the respondent passed an order as per the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 rejecting the request of the petitioner as the respondent/contemnor found no reason to believe the writ petitioner's version for issue of E-Pattadar Passbook, as it is clearly established that the land in Sy. No. 340-1 admeasuring an extent of Ac. 11.73 cents of Kothakota village belonging to Earladinne Masjid Inam. 8. The respondent denied the illegality in the endorsement, dated 13.07.2011 so also the order, dated 03.11.2021 passed by the contemnor ignoring the finding recorded by this Court and therefore he is not liable for punishment i.e. for disobedience of the order of this court and while asserting that as per orders of this Court in W.P. No. 20370/2021, the contemnor/respondent thoroughly enquired the request made by the Writ Petitioner for issue of E-Pattadar Passbook keeping in mind the direction/order of this Court and passed orders accordingly. Except that there is no willful and deliberate disobedience of the order passed by this Court, while exhibiting his respect towards the order of this Court. Hence, the respondent is not liable for punishment and requested to dismiss the Contempt Case. 9. During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner Sri. Challa Shiva Shankar reiterated the contentions urged in he petition while drawing the attention of this Court to the order in Rc. B.144/2021, dated 03.11.2021, whereunder, the respondent/contemnor rejected his request for issue of E-Pattadar Passbook and title deed, whereas a direction was issued by this Court only to mutate the name of petitioner in revenue records for the subject land. Thus, the respondent intentionally and deliberately violated the order of this Court and requested to punish him for contempt of Court. 10. Whereas, Sri. P. Subhash, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/contemnor vehemently contended that when the subject land is included in the prohibited property list, it is the duty of the respondent to protect the interest of the Masjid Inam being public servant, while it is the public duty and he may further attempt to protect the property and passed the order dated 03.11.2021. It is also asserted that the respondent keeping in view the consequences of such mutation, passed the order dated 03.11.2021, rejecting the request of the petitioner for issue of E. Pattadar Passbook and title deed. At this stage, the learned counsel for respondent Sri. P. Subash raised a specific contention that the contemnor misunderstood the order and issued endorsement dated 03.11.2021 and it does not amount to willful and intentional disobedience of the order of this Court. 11. It is further submitted that the writ petition was filed questioning the endorsement issued by the respondent for failure to issue E-Pattadar Passbook and title deed in favour of the petitioner and for mutation of his name in revenue records. This Court issued a direction only to mutate the name of petitioner in revenue records for the subject land. But the consequences of such mutation leads to serious litigation in future. Therefore, to protect the interests of Erladinne Masjid, the order dated 03.11.2021 in Rc.B.144/2021 is passed and it is neither willful nor deliberate disobedience of the order by the respondent in implementing the direction issued by this court, and due to misunderstanding of the order, dated 03.11.2021, the respondent requested to exonerate the respondent/contemnor from punishing under Section 12 of Contempt of Courts Act. 12. Considering rival contentions and on perusal of the material available on record, the point arose for consideration is: “whether the respondent/contemnor disobeyed the order passed by this Court in W.P. No. 20370 of 2021, dated 16.09.2021 willfully or intentionally or failed to pass appropriate order on misunderstanding? If not, whether the respondent/contemnor is liable for punishment under section 12 of Contempt of Courts Act?” 13. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner filed Writ Petition challenging the endorsement in Rc. A/08/2021, dated 13.07.2021, rejecting the petitioner's claim for mutating his name in revenue records and issue of E-Pattadar Passbook for the land in Sy. No. 340/1 admeasuring an extent of Ac. 11.73 cents situated in Kothakota village fields, C. Belagal Mandal, Guduru Sub-Division, Kurnool District. In spite of making an application through meeseva vide application bearing No. RMU-012106923123, dated 25.06.2021 under Form VI-A of the Act and declare the same as illegal and arbitrary. No. 340/1 admeasuring an extent of Ac. 11.73 cents situated in Kothakota village fields, C. Belagal Mandal, Guduru Sub-Division, Kurnool District. In spite of making an application through meeseva vide application bearing No. RMU-012106923123, dated 25.06.2021 under Form VI-A of the Act and declare the same as illegal and arbitrary. Though the petitioner made several allegations for failure to pass an order appropriately by the respondent in the Writ Petition, this Court issued the following direction in paragraph 8 of the order in W.P. No. 20370 of 2021, dated 16.09.2021: “Hence, the endorsement in Rc. A/08/2021, dated 13.07.2021 is hereby declared as illegal and arbitrary. Consequently set aside the same, while, directing the 4th respondent to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law for mutation of this petitioner for the land in Sy. No. 340/1 to an extent of Ac. 11.73 cents strictly adhering to the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass books Act, 1971.” 14. A bare look at the order, it is evident that a direction was issued to take steps to mutate the name of petitioner in the revenue records for the subject land admeasuring an extent of Ac. 11.73 cents in Sy. No. 340/1 of Kotta Kota village fields, C. Belagal Mandal, Guduru Sub-Division, Kurnool District strictly adhering to the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Rights in land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971. Though the direction is issued to mutate the name of petitioner in revenue records for the land admeasuring an extent of Ac. 11.73 cents in Sy. No. 340/1, but strictly adhering to the procedure. 15. This order was communicated by the office of this Court to the respondent. However, the petitioner by abundant caution submitted a representation dated 13.10.2021 annexing a copy of the order, dated 16.09.2021 passed in W.P. No. 20370 of 2021 to the respondent and other official respondents. A copy of track consignment is placed on record to establish that the item was delivered to the respondent/contemnor. Thus, the service of representation along with copy of the order in W.P. No. 20370 of 2021 is not in dispute, not even denied in the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent/contemnor. 16. A copy of track consignment is placed on record to establish that the item was delivered to the respondent/contemnor. Thus, the service of representation along with copy of the order in W.P. No. 20370 of 2021 is not in dispute, not even denied in the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent/contemnor. 16. The counter filed by the respondent/contemnor is suffice to conclude that the contemnor rightly made an attempt to implement the order and the allegation in paragraph No. 4 is suffice that the petitioner issued notice in Form VIII by following the procedure prescribed under Section 5(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 and at the same time, he received a representation from the Superintendent, Inspector Auditor, Waqfs, Collectorate, Kurnool District vide letter F. No. 54/Waqfs/KNL/2021, dated 25.10.2021, raising an objection for mutation of the name of petitioner in revenue records and for issue of Pattadar Passbook and title deed in his favour for the subject land. Therefore, the petitioner is conscious about the direction issued by this Court and rightly issued notice in Form VIII, strictly adhering to the procedure under Section 5(3) of Andhra Pradesh Rights in land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971, as averred in paragraph No. 4 of the counter affidavit by the respondent/contemnor and also verified the objections raised by the Superintendent, Inspector Auditor, Waqfs, Collectorate, Kurnool District in his letter F. No. 54/Waqfs/KNL/2021, dated 25.10.2021. 17. On the basis of the objection, keeping in view of the directions issued by this Court, the respondent/contemnor verified the revenue records thoroughly. Thus the allegations made in the counter affidavit more particularly, paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 are suffice to conclude that the Tahsildar applied his mind rightly understanding the direction issued by this Court and made sincere attempt to follow the procedure prescribed under Andhra Pradesh Rights in land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 by issuing notice in Form VIII r/w section 5(3) of the Act. Thus, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent/contemnor that the Tahsildar misunderstood the order is meritless and the same is hereby rejected. 18. Thus, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent/contemnor that the Tahsildar misunderstood the order is meritless and the same is hereby rejected. 18. When the Tahsildar/respondent/contemnor consciously followed the procedure prescribed under Section 5(3) by issuing a notice in Form-VIII, he cannot plead ignorance about the order/direction issued by this Court, but he passed a different order, rejecting the request of petitioner for issue of Pattadar Passbook and title deed by an order, dated 03.11.2021. Nowhere in the order the contemnor discussed about the specific direction for mutation of the name of petitioner in the revenue records for the subject land in the revenue records and he went on discussing about the right of Masjid and entries made in the revenue records, finally rejected the request for issue of E-Pattadar Passbook and title deed in favour of the petitioner and if that was not the direction issued by this Court in W.P. No. 20370 of 2021, dated 16.09.2021 since the learned counsel for the petitioner in the Writ Petition, raised the issue for mutation of the name of petitioner in the revenue records for the subject land. Instead of following the directions issued by this Court though initially he made an attempt to follow the procedure under Section 5(3) by issuing Form VIII under the Rule 19 of the rules framed under the Act, suddenly took a diversion from the procedure, passed an order rejecting or refusing the request of petitioner for issue of E-Pattadar Passbook and title deed, though that was not the direction. 19. One of the contentions put-forth before this Court by Sri. P. Subhash, learned counsel for the contemnor is that in case the name of petitioner is mutated in revenue records, he may alienate the property in future, which will cause prejudice to the rights of Earladinne Masjid, which is a public Trust. It is settled law that the entries in revenue records does not create or confer any title on any person or on the immovable property. It is only for the limited purpose of recording the name of the person cultivating the land and for collection of land revenue not for creating or conferring title over the property. It is settled law that the entries in revenue records does not create or confer any title on any person or on the immovable property. It is only for the limited purpose of recording the name of the person cultivating the land and for collection of land revenue not for creating or conferring title over the property. Therefore, the apprehension of the Tahsildar/respondent/contemnor is misplaced and without any basis and on the other hand, it is contrary to the settled law laid down by this Court and Apex Court, time and again. Hence, the apprehension is equally falls, not based on any law. 20. In any view of the matter, it is explicit from the record that the contemnor, instead of passing an order, strictly adhering to Section 5(3), Rule 19 by issuing Form VIII for mutation of the name of petitioner for the subject land, though followed the procedure to some extent, for the reasons best known to the respondent/contemnor, he passed an order, dated 03.11.2021 in utter deviation or disregard of the order passed by this Court. Since, the direction is limited to mutate the name of petitioner for the subject land in the revenue records, following the procedure as directed by this Court by issuing notice in Form VIII, strictly adhering to Section 5(3) and Rule 19 of the Act, it is suffice to conclude that the respondent/contemnor is conscious about the direction, but no order is passed and the allegations made in the counter affidavit are suffice to conclude that the petitioner willfully and deliberately violated the direction issued by the Court. When, once the Court finds that the respondent/contemnor violated the order wilfully or deliberately, he is liable for punishment under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act. But, one of the contentions raised by the learned counsel is that this Court by exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution to set aside the order, dated 03.11.2021. But, that is impermissible in view of the law declared by this Court, Prithawi Nadh Ram vs. State of Jharkhand, AIR 2004 SC 4277 where the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that while dealing with the application for Contempt of Court, the Court cannot travel beyond the order. It cannot test the correctness or otherwise of the order or give additional direction or delete any direction. It cannot test the correctness or otherwise of the order or give additional direction or delete any direction. That would be exercising review jurisdiction while dealing with an application filed in Contempt proceedings. The same would be impermissible and indefensible. Hence, applying the principle laid down in the above judgment jurisdiction of this Court is limited. This Court is not entitled to set aside the order passed by the respondent/contemnor, dated 03.11.2021 in Rc. B.144/2021. Consequently, this Court is unable to exceed the request of learned counsel for the respondent/contemnor. 21. The contempt jurisdiction is conferred on the Court of Record by Article 215 of the Constitution of India. If no such power to punish for contempt, the Court orders are only a paper tiger without claws and jaws. Reason for conferring jurisdiction is provide claws and jaws to take appropriate action against the person, who willfully disobeys the order of this Court. 22. The Contempt of Court is defined under Section 2(a) as follows: “contempt of court means, civil contempt or criminal contempt” - Whereas clause (b) of Section 2 defines Civil Contempt as “willful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or willful breach of an undertaking given to a court.” 23. The Contempt jurisdiction is not conferred on the Subordinate Courts and it is only conferred on the Court of record, in view of Article 215 of the Constitution of India. According to it, the High Court shall be a Court of record and shall have all the powers of such a Court, including the power to punish for contempt of itself. The jurisdiction of contempt is independent jurisdiction of its original nature. Therefore, this Court is competent to exercise such power to punish a person, who is guilty of contempt and this jurisdiction is enjoyed by Courts, is only for the purpose of upholding the jurisdiction of the judicial system that exists. While exercising this power, the Court must not react by the emotion, but must act judicially. Contempt proceedings are intended to ensure compliance of the orders of the Court and strict adhering of rule of law. While exercising this power, the Court must not react by the emotion, but must act judicially. Contempt proceedings are intended to ensure compliance of the orders of the Court and strict adhering of rule of law. Once, the essentials for initiation of contempt proceedings are satisfied, the Court shall initiate action, uninfluenced by the nature of direction in a pending lis before the Court vide judgment in Priya Gupta and Others vs. Additional Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and Others, JT 2013 (1) SC 27 : 2012 (12) SCALE 289 . Contempt jurisdiction enjoyed by the Courts is only for the purpose of upholding the majesty of judicial system that exists. While exercising this power, the Courts must not be hyper sensitive or swang by emotions, but must act judicially [Vide: Chairman, West Bengal Administrative Tribunal vs. Sk. Monobbor Hossain, (2012) 3 SCALE 534 ]. 24. “Contempt” is disorderly conduct of contemnor causing serious damage to the institution of justice administration. Such conduct, with reference to its adverse effects and consequences, can be discernibly classified into two categories one which has a transient effect on the system and/or the person concerned and is likely to wither by the passage of time while the other causes permanent damage to the institution and administration of Justice [Vide: Kalyaneshwari vs. Union of India and Others, (2011) 6 SCALE 220 ]. 25. In view of the law laid down in the judgments (referred supra), when the contemnor deliberately and willfully violated the order of the Court, he is liable for consequences under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, but the Court cannot be hyper sensitive in taking action against the contemnor. 26. Keeping in view of the law, the Court shall take appropriate action against the person, who violated the order of this court willfully, otherwise the Court itself violated its own order and it may lead to serious consequences. Therefore, to uphold the rule of law and to see that the order passed by this Court be implemented. Hence, I find that the respondent is guilty of Civil Contempt, as defined under Section 2(b) of the Act and liable for punishment under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act. 27. Therefore, to uphold the rule of law and to see that the order passed by this Court be implemented. Hence, I find that the respondent is guilty of Civil Contempt, as defined under Section 2(b) of the Act and liable for punishment under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act. 27. As discussed above, though the direction was issued by this Court in the Writ Petition to take steps to mutate the name of petitioner in revenue records for the subject land, initially, the respondent followed the procedure to comply the direction issued by the Court for mutation, but suddenly took a different turn and proceeded in a different direction for the reasons best known to him and ultimately rejected the request to issue E-Pattadar Passbook and title deed, which is not inconsonance with the direction issued by this Court. Such conduct of the respondent/contemnor would directly attracts Civil Contempt and liable for punishment under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act. Therefore, I find that the respondent/contemnor is guilty of Civil Contempt and liable for punishment. The punishment prescribed under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act is with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six (06) months or with fine which may extend to Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) or with both. 28. Taking into consideration, the gravity of deliberate and willful violation of the order of this Court and taking a lenient view against the contemnor/respondent may amount to failure of the Court to uphold the law by exercising power under Contempt of Court Act. The earlier order passed by the Tahsildar/contemnor was set aside and passing the order totally violating the direction issued by this Court has to be dealt with sternly. Therefore, I find it is appropriate to impose a simple imprisonment for a term of six (06) months and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only). In default, this respondent shall undergo simple imprisonment for a term of six (06) weeks. Hence, as the contemnor is a Tahsildar, Post Graduate in Arts, the order is suspended for a period of three (03) weeks, to enable him to file an appeal. 29. In the result, the Contempt case is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. 30. Consequently miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.