M/S Godavari Cooperative House Building Society Ltd v. B.R. Meena, I.A.S., Hyd And 2 Tohers

\ COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY ,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE PRESENT HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI CONTEMPT CAS ENO i 2308 0F 2017 (Contempt Case Under Section 10 lo 12 of Contempt of Courts Act to punish the Respondent herein for, willfully violating, the order of the H igh court dated 13O2-2O21 in W.A.No. 1118 of 1996 as confirmed in SLP No s 10413 to 10415 of 2001, dated 23-11-2001 and also contempt case No. 654 ol 2002 dated 24-122003.) Between:

M/s Godavari Cooperative House Building Society Ltd, Represented- by its President Sri P.Sudhakar Reddy S/o. Late Ramachandra Reddy, aged 79 years Occ. Retd. Govt. Servant, 86-4, Kalyan Nagar,Hyderabad - 500 038 ...PETITIONERYPETITIONER AND L B.R. Meena, l.A.S., Special Chief Secretary to the Government Revenue tesin.illiOdpirtmenqstate Government oi Telangana,Secretariat, Hyderabad. ....Respondent / Respondent No. 1

2. Mrs.K.Chandrakala, Revenue Divisional officer, secunderabad, collectorate, Hyderabad.

3. Mr.S.Ramulu, Tahsildar, Shaikpet,Hyderabad.

...Respondents / ProPosed

Contemnors l.A. NO: 1 oF 2017(APPL. NO: 1 027 0F 20 17\ Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased pleased to grant leave to the petitioner herein to implead the proposed respondents as Coitemnor Nos.2 and 3 in the above contempt proceedings, in the interest of justice.

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRt. PRABHAKAR SRIPADA counsel for the Respondents: THE ADDITIoNAL ADVOCATE GENERAL The Court made the following: ORDER

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CIIANDRA STIARMA AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI C.C.No.23O8 of 2OL7 ORDER:

fper rr'. ao n'b1e the chief Jrstice satish chandrd starmat The present contempt petition is arising out of the order dated 13.O2.2001 passed by the Division Bench in W.A.No.1 118 of t996.

The undisputed facts of the case reveal that the petitioner herein, M/s.Godavari Co-operative Housing Building Society Limited, was claiming title and possession in respect of land admeasuring Acs.10.00 in Survey No.l29 l3a I 1 of situated in Shaikpet Village, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. The undisputed facts also reveal that there was a difference of opinion between the two Judges of the Division Bench and the matter was referred to a third Judge. The matter was accordingly placed before the third Judge and the third Judge has passed an order on 25.11.1997 giving his opinion on the points of difference. The matter was thereafter placed before the Division Bench for fina1 order. The Division Bencti has passed the final order and the same is reproduced as under:- "As there was unanimitA in the uielu tdken by att the three judges that G.O.Ms.

No.942, Reuenue (Q) Department, dated 23-6' 1983, and the consequential proceedings in Rc. No. F4/ 3049/ 82, dated 15-12-1982 and also the asstgnment of the land to the ANRIC in Proceedings Rc.F4/3O37/81, dated 15-12-1982, are not in accordance with laut, theA are quashed and the parties are giuen tibertg to establish their rights in a proper ludiciat forum. Regarding possession, Paruatha Rao, J opined that the mateial sought to be relted upon by the respondents tn support of their contention with regard to the title, possession and aduerse possession has to be proved and established.

status quo to be maintained in respect of the tand.s in question till final determination of the Etestion of title and. possession is nad.e bg a proper forum. As per the majoritg opirlion, both the parties are directed to maintain slalus quo in respect of the lands in question till tfLe contrauention is resolued bg a proper forum. Coming to the plea of the respondents seeking a directiotl to the Gouemment to rerylaise the suit schedule properties to them at a reasonable market rate though the Gouemment rejected th.

eir application in pursuance of tLLe order, dated 29-8-2000, we stiu feet that as the dispute is pending for seueral gears in the courts tDtthout frnality and there is further possibility of drag@ng on the proceedings for some more decades in- the euent of either of tle parties approaching the court of lau to establish their ights, to put a quietus to the issue more so in the light of the orders passed bg the Gouernment from time to time tn favour of uaious persons uthere under itlegal occupations were reguLarised, ue direct the Gouemment to reconsider ,he issue and consider the feasibilitg of regularising the lands in question to the respondents at a reasonable market rate, iJ necessary bg inviting the representatiues of the respondent-societies for negotiations to arriue at the reasonable market ualue.

It is not a pious hope but wish of this court to do complete justice between the parties. We are fortified in our uiew bg a decision of the Supreme Court in B.C. CHATURVEDI us. UNION OF INDIA (()995) 6 SCC 749)) uherein their Lordships heLd "High Cour7, being a Court of Plenary yrisdiction, has inherent pou.)er to do 'complete Jt-tstice' betueen the parties similar to Supreme Court's power under Afticle 142 of the Constitution" To the same ellect are the judgm.ents of thts court in BADRIJKA COLLEGE OF C & A us. SIA?E OF A.P (1997 (1) ALD 282 (FB)) imd D. SATYANARAYANA us. N.T. RAMA RAO (AIR 1988 A.P. 144 (FB)) In the resutt, the uit appeals are allowed to the ertent indicated aboue. tYo costs.

The aforesaid order makes it very clear that no finding in respect of possession was given by the Division Bench, the parties were given liberty to establish their rights in a proper Judicial Forum and the Government was directed to re-consider the issue and consider the feasibility of regularising the lands in question in

J favour of the alleged land owners at a reasonable market rate by inviting the representatives of the respondents,/ societies therein for negotiations. After the judgment was delivered, a contempt petition i.e., C.C.No.654 ol 2OO2 was preferred alleging violation of the order of status quo. It was decided on 24.12.2OO3. The Division Bench, while disposing of the contempt petition, has passed the following order:- 'The auements made in the affid.autt filed. in support of the Contempt Case, undoubtedlg, disclose that there u)as some scramble for possession on 8-6-2002 on wh.tch d.ate admittedlg ilte second. respond.ent herein is stated to haue instructed. to get the eisting board.s repalnted. notifging the land to be gouernment rand. The question whether the said.

land belongs to the Gouemment or to tFLe petitioner-societg is get to be adjudicated in a properlg constituted proceeding. Euen in the counter affidauit and rejoinder filed by tlle ilrst respond.ent_Distrtct Collector, there is no specific plea or categoical assertion to the effect that tlrc Gouemment, at atr points of ttme, ,tas in possession and. continues to be in possession of the said land. Alt that is stated is that there ruere boards eisting in the said. land duly notifging tnt the land. belongs to the Gouemment and that the same board.s u.,tere renouated_ and re-witten. The fact remains that the said. land is an open land uhere no constructtons of whatsoeuer nqture haue been rnade bg the petittoner_societg and the respondents except one or ttro huts alleged to haue been raised bg the petitioner-societA as is eutd.

ent from the report of the Aduocate Commtssioner to Luhich no objections haue been filed. by respond.ents the circumstances, it cannot be possession of the said. land.

satd that the respond.ents are ln trt Hautng regard to the nature of controuersg and. the allegations levetled bg the petitioner-societg against the respondents, it is not possible to puntsh the respondents on the ground. that theg haue committed ang contempt cs such. It ts not ctearlg auered. in the a,ffi.dauit f.led. in support of the Contempt Case as to who were the actuaL persons aueged. to haue trespassed into the said. tand. It is true that there is a uague allegation that one Ramaiah came from the office of the second. respondent to the said. land under the instructions of respondents 1 and. 2 and. they haue erected tt o boards on 8-6-2e02 and. threatened that ciminal action would be initiated if the boards are remoued. from the lands. The satd Ramaiah is not impleaded as a partg respond.ent. It is not possibre to auard. ang punishment to the respond.enfs Lnless a clear case ts mad.e out as to LUho were those indiuiduals who alleged to haue intntded into the possessiotl oJ.

the satd land. In the circumstances, u)e are not inclined to proceed further and punish the respondents for hauing committed anA contemPL We are, loweuer, required to notice that this Court euen whtle ordering notice in this Contempt Case on 12.06.2002 passed further orders to the foltowtng e.fJect:

"Status quo granted earlier bA a Diutsion Bench of this Court tu continue."

That order continues to hold the Jield euen as on todaA. We have alreadg noticed the decision of the Diuision Bench' in uthich it is clearly hetd that both the parties are required to maintain sratus quo in respect of tlLe satd. tand till the controuersA is resolued by a proper forum. Thus, it is not open for ang of the parties to uiolate tlle orders passed bg a Auision Bench of this Court.

In the result, we hold that the status quo eisting as on the date of the decision of the Diwsion Benclv in all respects, including the possession, is required to be maintained and none of the parties sho,lt in whdtsoeuer manner be permitted to d'lter the mture of tle lard in whatsoeuer manner and they shall abide bg the order of status quo granted. by the Duision Bench unttl the issue is resolued in a properly constituted proceeding. There shall be an order accordingly' Th.e Contempt Case is accordinglg disposed of " It is true that in the contempt petition, it has been discussed that as per the Commissioner's report, the society was in possession of the land.

But, the fact remains that the Division Bench, while delivering the main judgment, has not observed anylvhere that the society was in possession' In fact, there was a claim and a counter claim in respect of possession and in those circumstances, the Division Bench has directed the parties to maintain status quo. Hence, by no stretch of imagination' it can be presumed that the averment in respect of possession of the society was given a stamp of approvai.

06.06.2017 on account of which the contempt petition has been filed and in the aforesaid order, it has been held that the State Government is in possession of the property.

This Court has carefully gone through the aforesaid order. The necessity of passing the aforesaid order arose only because of the direction given by the Division Bench to the State Government to re-consider the issue and consider the feasibility of regularising the lands in question. Because of this direction, representations were preferred by the society and the order dated 06.06.2017 reveals that it was the society, who submitted representation for regularising the lands before the State Government, and in that backdrop, the order has been passed by the State Government. The facts of the case further reveai that in spite of there being a liberty granted to the society, the society has opted not to file any civil suit so far and therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that by passing the order dated 06.06.2017, the State Government has certainly not committed any contempt in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. The contempt case is accordingly closed.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There sha1l be no order as to costs.

SD/.K.SRINIVASA RAO //TRUE COPY// JOINT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER

1. Sri B.R. Meena, l.A.S., Special Chief Secretary to the Government Revenue (Assn.lll) Department,State Government of TelanganarSecretariat, Hyderabad.

2. Smt.K.Chandrakala, Revenue Divisional OfficerrSecunderabad, Collectorate, Hyderabad.

3. Sri.S.Ramulu, Tahsildar, ShaikpetyHyderabad.

4. One CC to SRl. PRABHAKAR SRtpADA,Advocate IOPUC]

5. Two CD Copies

6. One Spare Copy To, .sB 9-

HIGH COURT DATED:31 11212021 rrE SiAiA tl o 17 JAN 2m2 3jl

ORDER

r.l'

* CC.No.2308 of 2017 .i sryir c CLOSING THE CONTEMPT CASE Ni,\o' d,