Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 600 (AP)

Hari Prasad v. Thirupathi Sai

2023-03-17

M.GANGA RAO

body2023
JUDGMENT M.Ganga Rao, J. - The petitioner filed this contempt case under the provisions of Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short 'the Act') complaining that the respondent-contemnor has not complied with the order passed by this Court on 13.03.2019 in W.P.No.3285 of 2019, whereunder and whereby this Court directed the Tahsildar - 4th respondent therein to consider the online application if any submitted by the petitioner for mutation and for issuance of pattadar passbooks and title deeds and dispose of the same, if not already disposed of, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. 2. The allegation of the petitioner is that in spite of submitting representation for implementation of the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.3285 of 2019 along with other documents, the 4th respondent refused to issue acknowledgement. Subsequently, his counsel issued contempt notice dated 11.09.2019 calling upon the respondent to implement the orders of this Court and the same was served on 16.09.2019 and in spite of the same, the respondent did not take any steps on his online application and the respondent wilfully and deliberately violated the orders of this Court and thereby liable for punishment. 3. The respondent filed his counter stating that he has verified the revenue records of Munagalapadu Village of Kurnool Mandal. The petitioner requested for issue E-Pattadar passbooks and title deeds and mutate his name in the revenue records, but the land extent Ac.6.00 situated in Sy.No.225 belongs to Jilekhan Mosque Waqf property and the land extent Ac.18.57 cents situated in Sy.No.225 is mentioned in Annexure-III of Munagalapadu Village under prohibited property list. Hence, the request of the petitioner is not considered. The endorsement issued to the petitioner vide respondent's office Rc.B.661/2019 dated 13.08.2019 was received by the petitioner's advocate by name Sri Ravi Kumar on 13.08.2019 and the endorsement was also sent to the petitioner by registered post on 28.10.2019. The petitioner filed the contempt case wilfully and purposefully suppressing the said fact. His predecessor could not take immediate action as per the orders of this Court, due to attending the duties of General Elections 2019 during the crucial period could not comply with the orders passed by this Court on 13.03.2019. The petitioner filed the contempt case wilfully and purposefully suppressing the said fact. His predecessor could not take immediate action as per the orders of this Court, due to attending the duties of General Elections 2019 during the crucial period could not comply with the orders passed by this Court on 13.03.2019. The allegation of the petitioner is false and incorrect and prays to close the contempt case. 4. Sri Challa Siva Sankar, learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently submits that the contemnor violated the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.3285 of 2019 wilfully and deliberately and the orders are not passed by the respondent within eight weeks' period as prescribed by this Court. The endorsement was not served on the petitioner and the respondent made mockery of the orders passed by this Court and liable for punishment. 5. Sri P.Subash, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, having stoutly opposed the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, states that the respondent after taking charge as Tahsildar in the present station immediately verified the record thoroughly and came to the conclusion that the petitioner is not entitled for the relief sought in the writ petition and to that effect, he made an endorsement and served the same on the counsel for the petitioner on 13.08.2019 duly rejecting the plea of the petitioner vide Endorsement in Rc.B.661/2018 dated 13.08.2019. 6. This Court, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of the learned counsel, found that the petitioner filed the contempt case complaining wilful and deliberate violation of the orders of this Court on 13.03.2019 passed in W.P.No.3285 of 2019, suppressing the endorsement given to the counsel for the petitioner and the factum of serving the endorsement by registered post vide RN4174414841N IVR:8278417441484 on 28.10.2019 and also a detailed endorsement was given by the respondent thus: 'This is to inform you that I have perused your application filed for issuance of epassbook in respect of Ac.6.00 of land in Sy.No.225 of Munagalapadu village, Kurnool Mandal. As per the report of the Mandal Revenue Inspector and Village Revenue Officer, Munagalapadu village, an extent of Ac.18.57 cents in Sy.No.225 is classified as 'Inam' and 'Manager Jilekhana Masjid' as per RSR and ROR and there is no possibility to issue epassbook in respect of an extent of Ac.6.00 cents in Sy.No.225 of Munagalapadu village. As per the report of the Mandal Revenue Inspector and Village Revenue Officer, Munagalapadu village, an extent of Ac.18.57 cents in Sy.No.225 is classified as 'Inam' and 'Manager Jilekhana Masjid' as per RSR and ROR and there is no possibility to issue epassbook in respect of an extent of Ac.6.00 cents in Sy.No.225 of Munagalapadu village. In view of the above, you are hereby informed that there is no possibility to accept your application No.RMU 011902178572 for issuance of e-passbook. Hence, this endorsement.' 7. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the respondent is not liable for punishment under the provisions of Section 12 of the Act and at best, it gives rise to a fresh cause of action to agitate before an appropriate forum, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of J.S.Parihar Vs. Ganpat Duggar and others (1996) S.C.C. 291, wherein it is held at Para 6 as follows: '... It is seen that once there is an order passed by the Government on the basis of the directions issued by the Court, there arises a fresh cause of action to seek redressal in an appropriate forum. The preparation of the seniority list may be wrong or may be right or may or may not be in conformity with the directions. But that would be a fresh cause of action for the aggrieved party to avail of the opportunity of judicial review. But that cannot be considered to be the wilful violation of the order. After re-exercising the judicial review in contempt proceedings, a fresh direction by the Single Judge could not be given to redraw the seniority list. In other words, the learned Judge was exercising the jurisdiction to consider the matter on merits in the contempt proceedings. It would not be permissible under Section 12 of the Act.' 8. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is dismissed. No order as to costs. 9. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this contempt case shall also stand dismissed.