Durva Laxman v. Mrs. Sama Susheela And Another

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY CONTEMPT APPEAL No.3 of 2020 Date: 22.01.2020 Between:

Durva Laxman, S/o. Naga Rao, Aged 50 years, Divisional Administrative Officer/MRO, O/o. Revenue Divisional Officer, Utnoor, Adilabad District.

... Appellant and Mrs. Sama Susheela and another

...Respondents

Counsel for the appellant:

Mr. K. Rama Subba Rao The Court made the following:

JUDGMENT: (per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Sri Raghvendra Singh Chauhan) The appellant-contemnor has challenged the order dated 20.12.2019, passed by a learned Single Judge, in C.C.No.588 of 2018, whereby the learned Single Judge has punished the contemnor with an imprisonment for one week, and has imposed a fine of Rs.2,000/-.

Briefly the facts of the case are that in W.P.M.P.No.42122 of 2017 in W.P.No.33855 of 2017, by order dated 06.11.2017, the Writ Court had observed as under: "Since prima facie the incorporation of the names of respondent Nos.8 and 9 in the revenue records and also the issuance of pattadar pass books and title deeds to them is without notice to the petitioners whose names are admittedly shown in the revenue records and who have already been issued pattadar pass books and title deeds, in respect of the subject land, there shall be interim suspension as prayed for."

Since the interim order passed by this Court on 06.11.2017 was not even implemented by the contemnor, the petitioners in the writ petition (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioners') had filed the aforesaid Contempt Case on 05.03.2018. Along with the Contempt Case, the petitioners had enclosed the copies of the pahanies issued to them on 16.02.2018. The copies of the pahanies clearly reveal that the names of the respondent Nos.8 and 9 in the writ petition had not been removed, and the petitioners' names were not incorporated. Therefore, the Contempt Court issued a notice to the contemnor. In his reply, the contemnor claimed that in

fact, on 10.11.2017 itself, he had implemented the order dated 06.11.2017. He further claimed that he had forwarded the copies thereof to this Court, the District Collector, Adilabad District, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Adilabad, the counsel for the petitioners, and the petitioners themselves. However, no evidence of this plea was ever submitted. Therefore, the learned Contempt Court had concluded that the explanation given by the contemnor was a false one. Hence, the learned Contempt Court convicted the contemnor as aforementioned. Hence, this appeal before this Court. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that although there was a delay, as the consent of the Collector needs to be had, but, in fact, the order was complied with. Therefore, the learned counsel pleads that the impugned order deserves to be set aside.

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

Needless to say once an order is passed by this Court, the said order has to be complied with forthwith, if not challenged by the respondents. The explanation given by the contemnor is blatantly incorrect and is misleading. Since a wrong explanation had been given, that too, under oath, the learned Judge was certainly justified in convicting the appellant for having committing the contempt of Court. Therefore, this Court does not find any merit in the present appeal. It is, hereby, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall also stand dismissed.

________________________________________ (RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN, CJ) _____________________________ (A. ABHISHEK REDDY, J) Date: 22.01.2020 va