A.K. Palani vs Usha Rani & Others

R. Raghunandan Rao, J

The petitioner was the owner of about Ac.7.00 of land in Sky.No.198/2A of Pedda Eatipakam Village, Satyavedu Mandal, Chittoor District. As the Joint Collector of the area had issued proceedings dated 05.09.2020 removing the name of the petitioner from the revenue records, in relation to this land, the petitioner had approached this Court for setting aside the said proceedings and for a further direction that the respondents in the writ petition should not dispossess the petitioner from the said land.

A learned Single Judge of this Court, by an order dated 08.07.2021, on the concession of the revenue authorities that the proceedings of the Joint Collector had been set aside by the Collector, Chittoor in R.Dis.E4/25/Satyavedu/2021, dated 08.01.2021, disposed of the writ petition with a direction that the petitioner should not be dispossessed from the land except by due process of law.

It appears that the said land was sought to be handed over to the promoter of the SEZ in the area after the said land had been acquired from the petitioner.

On 02.08.2021, the petitioner moved the present contempt case. It is stated in the contempt petition that negotiations had been initiated for selling the land of the petitioner to M/s.APIIC after the order of the learned Single Judge dated 08.07.2021. Even while the negotiations were going on, certain persons had entered into the land of the petitioner and started cutting down the Mango trees on the land, from 17.07.2021 to 22.07.2021.

It is the case of the petitioner that the persons responsible for cutting down of trees were respondents 1 to 4 in the contempt case and the petitioner prayed this Court to punish the said respondents for violation of the orders of this Court amounting to contempt of Court. This case was filed on the ground that cutting down of the said trees of the petitioner would amount to dispossession of the petitioner from the said land.

The respondents have filed their counter affidavits and the petitioner has also filed reply affidavit.

The 3rd respondent took the stand that the trees had been cut down by the petitioner himself. The 4th respondent took the stand that the trees are cut down by the promoter of the SEZ with the consent of the petitioner. However, both the respondents do not deny the fact that the trees of the petitioner were cut down from 17.07.2021 to 22.07.2021.

It is the case of the petitioner that the persons behind the cutting down of the trees of the petitioner were the respondents, while the respondent deny any responsibility or liability for such actions.

Though voluminous pleadings and material has been placed before this Court from either side, to demonstrate their respective pleadings, the issue before this Court, as to the persons responsible for such cutting down of trees stands elucidated on account of the pleadings of the petitioner that he was informed by the persons cutting down the trees that the said persons were acting on the instructions of the promoter of the SEZ, to whom the land was ultimately to be given.

While the petitioner has raised a plea that respondents 2 to 4 were also involved in the cutting of the trees, the said fact, except the allegations in the contempt case, has not been proved or demonstrated to this Court. In any event, the pleadings of the petitioner in paragraph-6 of the contempt case, about the role of the promoter of the SEZ, would preclude this Court from giving any finding against respondents 2 to 4.

This Court would also have to note that the role of the 2nd respondent appears to be minimal in this case and except formal allegations against him, no specific acts have been attributed against the 2nd respondent.

Though allegations are made against the 4th respondent, the stand of the 4th respondent appears to be in line with the version set out by the petitioner in paragraph-6 of his contempt case. Apart from this, the only allegation against the 4th respondent is the contention that she had threatened to withhold the cheques made out for payment of the sale price to the petitioner, subsequently.

This Court is not inclined to proceed against the 3rd respondent solely on account of the fact that the pleadings in the contempt case would make out a case against the promoter of the SEZ. In the circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that continuation of these proceedings would not serve any further purpose.

Accordingly, the contempt case is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.