Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 4 (AP)

Saragada Kalidas Reddy v. Manmohan Singh

2022-01-03

U.DURGA PRASAD RAO

body2022
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: “In view of the above facts and circumstances, this writ petition is allowed and second respondent is directed to consider the representations of the mother of petitioner dated 08.10.2017 and 28.05.2018 and considering the facts and circumstances delete the subject land from the list of prohibited properties under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 in terms of G.O.Ms.No.279, dated 04.07.2016, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this 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: (a) On receipt of the legal notice from the counsel for the petitioner, the 2nd respondent directed the Revenue Divisional Officer and Tahsildar, Visakhapatnam (Rural) to submit a detailed report in the matter to take up further decision on the representations of the petitioner’s mother for de-notification of the subject lands in Survey No.336 P of Madhurawada Village, Visakhapatnam District. (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. 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, Visakhapatnam is not correct. In general any assignment file or D-Form patta bear D.R.No. (Dharkhast Register number) followed by Fasli year (Fasli Year = Current English year – 590). Under any circumstances the D-patta would not be issued with Rc.No. unlike in this case. This observation concludes that the D-Form patta claimed by the petitioner is fake and fabricated. 7. In general any assignment file or D-Form patta bear D.R.No. (Dharkhast Register number) followed by Fasli year (Fasli Year = Current English year – 590). Under any circumstances the D-patta would not be issued with Rc.No. unlike in this case. This observation concludes that the D-Form patta claimed by the petitioner is fake and fabricated. 7. The petitioner has produced the copy of D-Form Patta said to be issued in favour of his father under Ex-Serviceman category and after examining the said documents, it is found that no survey number with specific sub-division number was mentioned in the said D-Patta and instead it is mentioned as 336/P, which is not correct and not agreeable since the total extent of Sy.No.336 is Ac.1366.40 cts and it is not possible to identify or locate Ac.5.00 cts (said to be assigned) in that huge extent of Sy.No.336 without any subdivision. 8. The Government vide G.O.Ms.No.279, Revenue (Assn.I) Department, dt:04.07.2016, speaks as follows: (1) The procedure of issuing NOC shall be dispensed with. There shall be no need for obtaining ‘NOC’ in all cases of assignment of Ex-Serviceman and Freedom fighters in which a period of ten (10) years has expired and if there is no dispute on land with the Government. (2) All such cases without dispute shall be deleted from the prohibitory list under Section 22-A of Registration Act, 1908 and furnished to the Registration Department. (3) In respect of cases in which there is a dispute with Government about the genuineness of the assignment or otherwise a list of such cases shall be prepared by District Collector and furnished to Registration Department by following the procedure U/s.22-A. The Sub-Registrar shall enter the details of such disputed lands in the online records deleting all other lands in which there is no dispute.” (d) Thus, the crucial elements for effecting clearance under the provisions of the G.O.Ms.No.279, dated 04.07.2016, are: (1) “Undisputed proof of assignment and subsequent conditions of continued possession and enjoyment without any violation. (2) Undisputed proof of the assignment under the category of Ex-servicemen.” 4. (a) In the instance case, as observed, no sub-division record and no ayan conversion orders were found since no assignment was made in favour of the petitioner’s father. The D-Form patta produced by the applicant is not in conformity with the above procedure that should have been followed for grant of assignment. (a) In the instance case, as observed, no sub-division record and no ayan conversion orders were found since no assignment was made in favour of the petitioner’s father. The D-Form patta produced by the applicant is not in conformity with the above procedure that should have been followed for grant of assignment. It is also a fact that the total extent of Survey No.336 of Madhurawada is Acres 1366.40 cents and out of which, the land claimed by the petitioner by dubious means is not sub-divided based on either the possession status or possession established by way of cultivation details or marks. Further, as per the provision in G.O.Ms.No.279, Revenue (Assn-I) Department, dated 04.07.2016, cases in which there is a dispute with Government about the genuineness of the assignment or otherwise, a list of such cases shall be prepared by the District Collector and furnished to Registration Department by following the procedure under Section 22-A. The subject land is a Government land and there is no proof of assignment of the subject land, the land was rightly notified in the list of prohibited properties U/s 22-A of the Registration Act. Thus, all the facts and observations prove beyond any doubt that the assignment claimed to have been made in favour of the petitioner’s father in respect of the subject land by virtue of D-Form patta is not genuine one and the D-Patta is a fabricated one. Therefore, the request of the petitioner to de-notify the land from the list of prohibited properties under Section 22-A of A.P. Registration Act was rejected and an endorsement, vide Rc.No.460/2021/E7, dated 07.10.2021, was issued to the petitioner. Accordingly, the orders of this Hon’ble Court were complied with. Therefore, this contempt case is not maintainable. (b) For another reason also, the contempt case is not maintainable because the order was passed more than one year ago and non-compliance is now challenged after the span of one year. Hence, the contempt case is not maintainable. The respondents, thus, prayed to dismiss the contempt case. 5. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, Sri K.Gani Reddy and Sri G.L.Nageswara Rao, learned counsel, representing on behalf of the respondents/contemnors. 6. Hence, the contempt case is not maintainable. The respondents, thus, prayed to dismiss the contempt case. 5. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, Sri K.Gani Reddy and Sri G.L.Nageswara Rao, learned counsel, representing on behalf of the respondents/contemnors. 6. The argument of learned counsel for petitioner is that the tone and tenor of the order in W.P. No.18332 of 2019 is that the respondent authorities shall consider the representations of the mother of the petitioner dated 08.10.2017 and 28.05.2018 and delete the subject land from the list of prohibited properties under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 and except deleting the said land from the purview of the Section 22-A of the Registration Act, passing of any other orders by the respondents will not amount to due compliance of the court order. He would further argue that in the instant case instead of deleting the subject land from the list of prohibited properties under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, the respondent authorities challenged the very issuance of the D-Patta in favour of the petitioner’s father and rejected the request of the petitioner’s mother to de-notify the land. Thus, the act on the part of the respondents amounts to sheer contempt of the court orders. So long as the order is in force, the parties are bound by the orders of the Court until it was modified, clarified or set aside. On this proposition, he placed reliance on the decision of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad in G.Om Prakash v. V.R.Karanna, 1998 (2) APLJ 364. He would argue that since the respondents have not implemented the order in letter and spirit, they are liable for contempt. 7. Per contra, Sri G.L.Nageswara Rao, learned counsel for respondent/contemnors would argue that an order was passed by this Hon’ble Court at the stage of admission only directing the respondent authorities to consider the representations of the mother of the petitioner dated 08.10.2017 and 28.05.2019 and considering the facts and circumstances, delete the subject land from the list of prohibited properties under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 in terms of G.O.Ms.No.279, dated 04.07.2016, within two months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. Learned counsel would emphasize that the aforesaid order is not a straight direction to the respondent authorities to delete the subject property from the list of the prohibited properties under Section 22-A of the Registration Act. On the other hand, what the Hon’ble High Court directed is that (1) respondent shall consider the representations of the mother of the petitioner dated 08.10.2017 and 28.05.2018, (2) and consider the facts and circumstances, (3) and then, delete the subject lands from the list of prohibited properties under Section 22-A of the Registration Act in terms of G.O.Ms.No.279, dated 04.07.2016. He would submit that this Hon’ble Court attached the responsibility on the respondents to consider the representations of the petitioner on one hand and also consider the facts and circumstances on the other hand and then, delete the subject land from the list of prohibited properties, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.279. Learned counsel would submit that if the facts and circumstances which are considered by the respondent authorities militate against the representations of the mother of the petitioner, as is happened in this case, they are not bound to delete the subject properties from the prohibited list of properties under Section 22-A of the Registration Act. Therefore, the 2nd respondent directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to examine the facts and circumstances and submit a report and his report showed that the total extent of the land measured in Survey No.336 is Acres 1366.40 cents classified as ‘Konda Poramboke’ and there is no such division for this land to name as Survey No.336P as is sought for by the petitioner and further, there was never any assignment of the land of Acres 5.00 cents or for any extent in favour of Sri Saragada Kannarao Reddy, the father of the petitioner. In all the concerned revenue records, the name of the father of the petitioner’s is not recorded as D-Pattadar. Taking all these facts and circumstances, the claim of the petitioner was rejected. The 2nd respondent passed an order vide Rc.No.460/2021/E7, dated 07.10.2021 and rejected the request of the petitioner’s mother to delete the property from the prohibited list. Learned counsel, thus, argued that the respondents have duly complied with the order of this Hon’ble Court and therefore, no vice of contempt can be attributable to them. 8. I find considerable force in the submission of learned counsel for respondents. Learned counsel, thus, argued that the respondents have duly complied with the order of this Hon’ble Court and therefore, no vice of contempt can be attributable to them. 8. I find considerable force in the submission of learned counsel for respondents. It should be made clear that the order on the basis of which the contempt case is filed does not depict that any straight direction was given to the respondents to delete the subject land from the prohibited list of the properties under Section 22-A of the Registration Act. On the other hand, this Court directed the respondent authorities to consider the representations of the petitioner’s mother and also to consider the 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 the relevant facts and circumstances and to pass an order on merits. Running the risk of pleonasm, if it were the intention of the Court to give an unequivocal direction to the respondents to delete the subject property from the prohibited list, the order would have been in a different tone and tenor, that is not the situation here. In my perspective, the respondent authorities have rightly undertaken exercise of collecting the relevant facts and circumstances and passed an order. It must be hastened to say that this Court is not either approving or disapproving the veracity of the rejection order passed by the 2nd respondent. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the rejection order passed by the 2nd respondent, it is open for the petitioner and his mother to challenge the same before the appropriate forum. However, what comes for consideration in this contempt case is whether or not the respondents complied with the order of this Court. In that context, it must be stated that the respondents have duly complied with the direction in the order dated 19.11.2019 in W.P. No.18332 of 2019. Therefore, the respondents are not liable for contempt. The decision relied upon by the petitioner is of no avail to them. 9. Accordingly, this contempt case is dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.