Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 528 (TS)

Banothu Badya v. Venkudothu Balakrishna

2023-07-20

G.RADHA RANI

body2023
JUDGMENT 1. This Contempt Case is filed by the petitioner-D.Hr.-plaintiff to punish the respondent No.3 i.e. Sub-Inspector of Police cum SHO, Mattampally Police Station, Mattampally Village & Mandal, Suryapet District, by name, I. Ravi Kumar S/o. I. Veeraiah, under Ss. 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for willfully disobeying the order dtd. 17/8/2022 passed in E.A. No.1 of 2021 in O.S. No.38 of 2019 by the Junior Civil Judge, Huzurnagar, Suryapet District. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Home, representing respondent No.3. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was the owner and pattedar of the agricultural land to an extent of Acs.2.00 gts., in Sy.No.540/246 situated within the revenue limits of Peddaveedu village of Mattampally Mandal, Suryapet District. The petitioner was aged about 77 years. As the respondent Nos.1 and 2 were interfering with his possession, the petitioner filed O.S. No.38 of 2019 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Huzurnagar seeking the relief of permanent injunction against respondent Nos.1 and 2. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 did not contest the suit. The suit was decreed on 5/2/2020 by the trial court restraining respondent Nos.1 and 2 from interfering with the suit schedule property. Even after passing of the judgment and decree by the trial court, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 were interfering with the possession of the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner filed E.P. No.1 of 2021 and also E.A.No.1 of 2021 seeking a direction to the respondent No.3 to provide necessary police aid to implement the decree granted in O.S. No.38 of 2019. The said E.A. No.1 of 2021 was allowed on 17/8/2022. However, the respondent No.3 was not implementing the order of the trial court and was not providing the police aid to protect the property as per the judgment and decree dtd. 5/2/2020 in O.S. No.38 of 2019. 4. He further submitted that respondent No.3 colluded with respondent Nos.1 and 2 and instead of providing police aid as per the directions of the trial court in E.A. No.1 of 2021 directed the petitioner not to enter into the suit schedule land without his permission and also directed to pay Rs.3, 00, 000.00 to respondent Nos.1 and 2 and then only he would allow him to enter into the suit schedule land. The respondent No.3 threatened the petitioner with dire consequences and acted in violation of the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, hence, prayed to punish the respondent No.3 as per the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act for not honouring the order of the trial court passed in E.A. No.1 of 2021. 5. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 were shown as not necessary parties. The respondent No.3 filed counter affidavit stating that his name was shown as I. Ravi Kumar S/o.I. Veeraiah, but his name was E. Ravi S/o.Eedaiah and that he was presently working as S.I. of Police, Chityal P.S., Nalgonda District. He was formerly S.I. of Police of Mattampally P.S., Suryapet District. He submitted that the petitioner approached him on 9/11/2022 and produced the order copy dtd. 17/8/2022 passed in E.A. No.1 of 2021 in E.P. No.1 of 2021 in O.S. No.38 of 2019 by the Junior Civil Judge, Huzurnagar, Suryapet District, directing the S.H.O., Mattampally P.S. to provide police aid to the petitioner for implementation of the decree passed in O.S. No.38 of 2019, dtd. 5/2/2020. As per the said order, he along with his staff went to the land on 9/11/2022 but one person, by name, Vankudothu Balu, respondent No.2, came there and raised dispute stating that the said land belonged to him and created nuisance. Then, he secured the presence of two mediators (1) Banothu Balu S/o.Gobriya and (2) Banothu Chanda S/o. Bhina, both residents of Avirenikunta thanda village and in their presence conducted panchanama and addressed a letter to the Junior Civil Judge, Huzurnagar vide letter dtd. 16/12/2021 requesting the court to direct the revenue authorities to conduct survey to identify the boundaries of the suit schedule land to enable to provide protection, but till date no survey was conducted and there were no further orders from the court. In the meanwhile he was transferred from Mattampally village, Suryapet District to Chityal, Nalgonda District on 5/6/2023. He denied the allegations that he directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.3, 00, 000.00 to respondent Nos.1 and 2 and directed the petitioner not to enter into the suit schedule land without his permission. In the meanwhile he was transferred from Mattampally village, Suryapet District to Chityal, Nalgonda District on 5/6/2023. He denied the allegations that he directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.3, 00, 000.00 to respondent Nos.1 and 2 and directed the petitioner not to enter into the suit schedule land without his permission. He further stated that he had not violated the orders of the court at any point of time, he had high regard for the orders of the court and tendered his unconditional apology for the lapse if any on his part in implementing the orders of the court and prayed to accept the same. 6. Perused the record. The record would disclose that the petitioner was the plaintiff and he filed O.S No.38 of 2019 seeking the relief of perpetual injunction and the same was decreed ex parte on 5/2/2020 granting perpetual injunction restraining the defendants therein (respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein) from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner-plaintiff over the suit schedule property. 7. For implementing the said order, the petitioner filed E.P. No.1 of 2021 and E.A.No.1 of 2021 seeking police protection. The said petition was ordered on 17/8/2022. The boundaries of the schedule property were mentioned in the judgment and decree as well as in the police protection order. Inspite of the schedule of property clearly mentioned in the order including the boundaries, the respondent No.3 stating that one Mr. Vankudothu Balu (Respondent No.2) came and raised dispute that the above property belonged to him and for the said reason, he could not provide police protection and that he conducted a panchanama and addressed a letter to the trial court to direct the revenue authorities to conduct survey to identify the boundaries of the suit schedule land, were nothing but exceeding his authority. 8. As per the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the judgment and decree in O.S No.38 of 2019 dtd. 5/2/2020 became final and no appeal was preferred by the respondent Nos.1 and 2. If respondent Nos.1 and 2 were having any objection with regard to the implementation of the order, they would need to approach the court and file necessary petitions to set aside the ex parte judgment and decree passed against them. 5/2/2020 became final and no appeal was preferred by the respondent Nos.1 and 2. If respondent Nos.1 and 2 were having any objection with regard to the implementation of the order, they would need to approach the court and file necessary petitions to set aside the ex parte judgment and decree passed against them. It was no duty of the respondent No.3 addressing letters to the court seeking direction to the revenue authorities to conduct survey to identify the boundaries of the property. It would show the connivance of the respondent No.3 with respondent Nos.1 and 2 and willful disobedience of the orders of the trial court wherein he was directed to provide police protection to implement the orders of the court. As such, this Court does not consider the apology tendered by respondent No.3 as genuine, sincere or offered with a sense of remorse and repentance except a calculated strategy to avoid punishment. As non-compliance of the judicial orders shake the very foundation of the judicial system and undermine the Rule of Law as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in SEBI Vs. Sahara India Real Estate Corp. Ltd. & Ors., (2014) 5 SCC 429 . and as the same is essential to maintain faith and confidence of the people in judiciary, it is considered fit to punish the respondent No.3. 9. In the result, the Contempt Case is allowed sentencing the respondent No.3 herein to suffer seven (7) days imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2, 000.00 (Rupees Two Thousand Only). However, the sentence of imprisonment is suspended for a period of four (4) weeks from today. 10. The petitioner is directed to pay subsistence allowance @ Rs.200.00 per day to the respondent No.3-contemnor during the period of his detention in civil prison, within four (4) weeks from today. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending in this petition, if any, shall stand closed.