'1. Sri HanSach Dev (died) per LRs v. Sri Galajar Natrajan

For the Petitioner : Sri C. Hanumantha Rao, Advocate For the Respondents: Sri Pottigari Sridhar Reddy, Spl. GP attached to the office of Advocate General The Court made the following: ORDER ..} n l HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY CONTEMPT CASE No. 143 of2OLI. ORDER: This CorrLempt Czlse is [rled alleging non compliance of the order, datcd 13.08.2009 passed by rhis Court jn W.p.No.46l5 of 2000

2. The petitioner hercin filed W_p.No.4615 of 20OO seeking a writ of mandamus to approve retainable area of 1O0O sq.yards as requested by him on 14.09.1999 and to pay compensation for the excess land ol' 1826.76 sq.mtrs. It is sLated that the petitioner is absolute owncr and possessor of land admeasuring 2826.76 sq.mtrs in Sy.No.387 siLuatcd at Shaikpet Village and after the enactment of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short ,,ULC Act,,), he filed declarzrtion in C.C.No.E2 I 1869 176. After due enquiry, the orders under Scction 8(a) of the ULC Act were passed and final state ment unrler Section g of rhe ULC Act, was issued declaring that the petitioner is entitrcd to hold r00o sq.mtrs as retainable area under Sectio. a(1)(b) of the ULC Act. Thereafter, rhe possession of surplus land u,as taken over by following due proccss o[ law on

06.o'2 1997 This Court. after considering the counter affidavit and the material orr record, while observing that the retrrinable area of the peLitioner was assigned in favour of third parties and thereby the \" l - \ petitioner's right to enjoy the retainable arca was deprived under section 4(1) (b) ol the Act, disposed of *,rit petition uide order dared 13.08.2009, u,ith rhe following direcrions: "..Under those circurnstances, the Dlstrict Collector, Hgd.erabad. Dr.stnct is dtrected to depute an Olrt.cer, not below the rank of"Reuenue Dtuisioru Off.cer, to_ cotrduct spot inspecttort of the sllbJect land witfun 15 dags from the date of rece.ipt of this order; l)To identlfu the surplus land antl the retainable land of the petittoner arrd drau a sketch/ map. 2) What uas the area of the surplus land allotted to others. 3) Whether atry land is stitL uacant as on date. 4) If there LS anA uacant land is auailable, tLLe sc.rrle shall be allouterj to be occupied by the petitioner os retainable area. 5) If no opert land ts auattable, the Reuenue Diuisional. Off.cer shall ident{g the retanoble area and the Distnct Collector shall hqnd ouer the same to the petttioner bg uacating the illegat ocatpants, if arty. 6) If rto such land is auailabte, the respondents shall inuoke land acqutsilion proceedings for grant of compensation under th.e Act, as the petitiotler utas depiued of his retainable tand of 1O0O sq.mtrs. i egallg. The wril petitiotl is accordinglg qllowed. No order as to cosls.,,

3. Alleging that the respondent has willfully disobeyed the orders of this Court in identifying the surplus land or for payment of compcnsation by invoking the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, this Contempt Case is filed on lI.O2.2Oll.

4. After receipt of the notice, a counter aflidavit has been filed by the respondent District Collector, Hyderabad, on 26.03.2012. It is the specific case of the respondent that the Contempt Case was hled beyond the period prescribed under Section 20 of the Contempt ol 4 Courts AcI and thc petitioner having sLated in the affidavit accompanying the contcnrpt case that he has personally met the respondent on 05.02.2009 and made a request for implementation oI the order, filecl the contempt case on lO.O2.2Ol t, u,hich is much beyond the period of limitation. The respondent rvhile denying the contents of thc affidavit filed in support of contempt case, prayed for dismissal of thc contempt case on the sole ground of limitation.

5. This Contempt Case u,as admitted on 07.03.2O 12 and pending adjudication of the same, rhc solc peritioner died on 27.OB.2Oll and the Legal Heirs of the deceased petitioner have been brought on record as petilioner Nos.2 to 4 vide orders dated 17.02.2017 passed in Application Nos.1460/2015 and 146l l20 j5. During the pendency of this contempt case, the sole respondcnt in Contempt Case was relicved from his post. Thereafter, ar-r Application vide No.266/2017 u,as filed to add the Successor Officcr as respondent No.2 and the serme u,as allorved. When this Contempt Case is taken up for final hearing, neither the respondent No.1 or respondent No.2 are proper parlies to subject them for rigmarole of contcmpt trial.

6. Sri Pottigari Sridhar Reddy, learned Spccial Government Pleader attached to the office of learned Advocatc General placed reliance on thc counter affidavit filed by the respondent and submitted that for implcmentation of the orders, passed in \1 - I ) w.P.No.46 15/2o0o, the respondent deputed the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Sccunderabad, to inspect the subject land in question and submit a report. As per the report submitted by the RDO, there is no open land available for handing ovcr Lo the petitioner as retainable area in terms of the sketch drawn by the petitioner.

7. The respondents having stated that they are no[ rn a position to identify and localize the retainable area, ought to have complied with condition No.6 ol the orders passed in W.p.No.46 15l2OOO, wherein this Court specifically directed the respondents that if no such land is availablc, they shall invoke land acquisition proceedings and pay compensation to the petitioner for depriving him ol the retainable land. B. In this con text, it is neccssary to examine the object of Urban Land ceiling Regulation Act, 1976.'rhe legisraturc to see that the urban resource/urban land to bc distributed io various sections of the Soclety and to control the speculative transactlons have enacted the ULC Act and it is made mandatory for filing of the declaration for the vacant lands w.ithin the urban agglomeration. While conducting an enquiry under the provisions of the ULC Act, a duty was cast upon the authorities to pay compensation for the vacant land acquired undcr Scction 1o(3) of the ULC Act. In the counrer afhdavit hled in the writ petition, it is stated that after issuance of notification 6 under SecLion l0(5) of the Act, the orders under Scction 10(6) ol the Ac[, were issucd or-r 06.02.1997, authorizing the Enquiry Ofhcer to take possession of the slrrplus land to an extent of 1826.76 sq.mtrs and accordingly, possession \,i,as taken on 31.O3. 1997 and handed over to Mandal Revenue Offtcer. It appcars from thc record that there is a dispute bctween the declarant and his brother, u,ho liled Writ Petition No.2339/ 1998 for retainable area and the State is not in a position to pass an a',vard under section I 1(8) of thc Act. The record further reveals that there is a disputc relating to identification/ localization of lands on ground as the location and the map prepared by the petitioner are. not tallying. A care[ul examination of the contents of thc contempt alfidavit and the counter atfidavit would reveal that there is serious dispute rvith regard to identification/ Iocalization of the land, as part of the lands are covered by weaker section houses and CC road.

9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of judgnrcnts he.ld that to punish the contemnors for violation of the ordcrs, two essential conditions viz., "wilful and deliberate" action must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. \-l - 1

10. In Ashok paper Kamgar union as. Dharam Godha and otherst, the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered thc concept ol ,wilful disobedience' of an order of the Courl. It rvas stated that \^rilful, mcans an ac[ or omission r.r.hich is done voluntarily and with the specific intent to do somcthing the lau. forbids or wrth the specific intent to fail to do something the lau, requires to be done, that is to say, with bad purpose either to disobey or to disregard the law. According to the Court, it signifies the act done with evil intent or with a bad motivc for the purpose. It was observed that the act or omission has to be j udged having regard to the facts and circumstances of each caSe. 1 1. ln Kapild.eo prasad So,h and Others as. State oJ Bihar and Others2 the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that for holding a person to have committed contcmpt, it must be shown that there was wilful disobedience of the judgmcnt or order of the Court. It was further observed that issuance of notice for contempt of Court and power to punish are having far reaching consequences, arrd as such, they should be resorted to only when a clear case of w ful disobedience of the court's order is made out. A petitioner who complains breach of Courl's order must allege deliberate or contumacious di-so6edience of the Court's order and if such '1zoos; ttscc t ' ltoooy z scc 569 8 allegation is proved, contempt can be said to havr: been made out, not otherwise. It was noted that power to punish for contempt is intended to maintain effective legal system. 12 In thc instant casc, thc prescnt Contempt Cl;tse arises out of the ordcrs dated 13.08.2009 passed in Writ Pe[iLiorr No.4615/2000. Admittedly, the Contempt Case was filed on 23.08.2010. The Registry retunred the Contempt Case with certain Ollei:tions on the same day. The petitioner resubmitted the contempt case on 1O.O2.2O11 along with condone delay applicaLion vidc: Application No- 130/ 20 1 1 and this Court allowed the said application on ll.O2.2OlI . This Contempt Case u.as actmrtted on O7.03.2012. Even if the period of limitation is reckoned from thc dzrte on which the delay in representing the contempt case was condoned i.e.,

11.O2.2Ol I, thc contempt case w,as admitted onl1. on 07.O3.2O12, '*.hich is clearly beyond the limitation period prescribed under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act. The Hon'blc Apcx Court and this Court in catena of judgments while referrir-rg to the Section 17 read with Rule 18 of the Contempt of Courts Act. has categorically held that merc issuance of notice/notice before admission within the period of one year does not stop running of Lhe time of one year as prescribcd under the Contempt of Courts Act. The Hon,blc Supreme 9 { Court in Punrshotho:m Das us. B.S.DiIanr held that no contempt proceedings can be initiated by a Court after the expiry of one year from the date oi the alleged act o[ contempt, as prescribed under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 197 1. Even if an application seeking initiation of contempt proceedings is litecl within the prescribed period of onc ,year, such application would be automatically barred by limitation ii the Court fails to take cognizance or apply its judicial mind to thc alleged act of contempt before the expiry of the said period. For thc said rcasons this Court is not having any doubt in mind that the facts stated supra disentitle the petitioner to seek relief under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, more particularly, as the petirioner failed to establish wiiful deliberate action or indiffercnt attitude on the part of the respondents. Further, the letter dated 10.10.1985 addressed by the petitioner to the Special Officer and Compctent Authority, would show that the petitioner admitted that the land in question has been occupied unauthorisedly and itlcgally by hut mates since 1967 or 1968 and the occupants perfected their title by adverse possession (A copy of the said letter is hled as additional material papers in the present Contempt Case). ' AIR 1978 sc lo 14 l0

13. Be that as it may, this Court while exercising tire powers under Section 23 of the Act, 1971 read \^,ith Articles 21li and 227 of the Constitution of India and by Section 129 of thc Code ol Civit Procedure, framed the Rules [o Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of Subordinale Court and of the High Court under thc Contempl of Courts' Act, 1971. Rule 27 specihcally states thaL Lhe Court may pass such orders as the Justrce of the case requires. Admittedly, this Court u'hile disposing the writ petition observt:d that if the rcspondents arc not in a position to re-deliver the rctainable area of 1000 sq.yards, they shall invoke land acquisition proceedings lor grzrnt of compe nsation for the said extent o[ land. ']'hc orders of this Court in W.P.No.4615 of 2000 have attained finalit1,. This Contempt Case is pending since more than 13 years frorn the date o[ zrdmission. In the meantime, the offtcer who was arrayed as party respondenl, relieved from his post. Even the olficcr who was impleaded vid<: I.A.No.2 of 2Ol7 also relieved from his posl. Keeping in mrnd, injustice done to the petitioner and as the rcsponden[s have not complie d r,',i th the orders, this Court being con lcrred u,ith the pou,er under Rule 27 of Contempt of Court Rules, deems it appropriate to pzrss appropriate and justifiable orders to uphold the dignitl, of the Courts. The power to punish for Cor-rtcmpt of Court's order is vital to safeguard the authority and efhciencv ol the judicial s),stcm. This porver is essential for upholdine the rule of lar,,r. an<l \ ensuring due compliance by addressing actions that undermine its authority, obstruct its proceedings, or climinish the pubtic trust and confidence in the judicial sysrem.

14. Keeping in mind thc above principles and in order to meet the ends of justice, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the District Collector, Hyderabad, to comply u,ith condition No.6 of the order dated 13.O8.2009 passed in W.p.No.461S/2OOO i.e, if no such land is auailable, the respondents shall inuoke land acquisition proceedings for gront of compensation under the Act, as the petitioner uas depiued of his retainable land_ of |OOO sq.mrrs. illegallg, as per thc applicable laws as on the date of passing orders, u,ithin a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this Order. 15 Accordingly, this ContempI Casc is disposed ol Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPYII SD/. MOHD. ISMAIL PUTY REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble Justice C.V. Bhaskar Red (For His Lordship's kind Perusal) v To, '1. Sri Galajar Natrajan, The Dlstrict Collector, Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad. Hyderabad District at Nampally Station Road Hyderabad 2. Rahul Bojja, lAS,, District Collector, Hyderabad District, 3. One CC to Sri C. Hanumantha Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to The Advocate General, High Court for the State of Tel4ngana at 5. '1 '1 LR Copies 6. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Hyderabad [OUT] Affairs, New Delhi

7. The Secretary, Telairgana High Court Advocate's Association Library, High Court for the State of Telangana, High Court Buildings at Hyderabad.

8. Two CD Copies w- 5r Gr F rE t! llll''9 L. HIGH COURT DATED'.10t6t2025 ORDER CC.No.143 o12011 _ ir'r

9.\ \ sOJUT [E + c Spn' . F: - !i -\!'/ CONTEMPT CASE IS CLOSED )0