AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda, J
This Contempt Case has been filed complaining willful disobedience in implementing the Order dated 18.03.2015 passed by this Court in W.P.M.P.No.4862 of 2015 in W.P.No.3661 of 2015.
Heard Sri Mahadeva Kanthrigala, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2, and perused the material available on record.
The petitioner filed W.P.No.20740 of 2021 claiming writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in directing the petitioners to evict from Plot Nos.6 to 8, 10 to 28, 30 to 36 and 39 in S.No.672-8 of Kollabailu Village, Madanapalle Mandal, Chittoor District.
This Court passed orders in WPMP No.4862 of 2015 in W.P.No.3661 of 2016 on 18.03.2015 and issued the following directions:
“On two occasions the matter was adjourned to enable the Assistant Government Pleader to get instructions. Today also the learned AGP submits that he has not received any instructions. Considering the fact that this Court in similar circumstances passed interim direction, there shall be interim direction as prayed for.”
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, without implementing the orders of this Hon’ble Court in WPMP No.4862 of 2015 in W.P.No.3661 of 2016 on 18.03.2015 in true spirit, the respondents deliberately flouted the orders of this Court and tried to evict the petitioners from the house site plots, as such, it amounts to violation of the orders passed by this Court in WPMP No.4862 of 2015 in W.P.No.3661 of 2016 on 18.03.2015. He further contends that, failure on the part of the respondent in implementing the orders of this Court would amount to disobedience of the orders of this Hon’ble Court, and, therefore, they are liable for punishment under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act. Complaining the same, the petitioners filed the present Contempt Case.
The respondents filed counter affidavit and additional counter affidavit contending that, the 2nd Respondent/ contempnor Sri C.V. Sivaram Reddy, who was the then Tahsildar and others were responsible with respect to the falsification of Assignment Record of house sites and necessary departmental enquiry was initiated against them. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the claim of the petitioner is itself based upon falsification and fabricated record and the alleged house site pattas were issued by a retired Tahsildar Sri C.V. Sivaram Reddy, who worked as Tahsildar, Madanapalle Mandal long ago by putting back date, as if the same were issued while he was discharging duties as Tahsildar, Madanapalle. It is further contended that the Assignment Register reveals that, in the year 2007 itself, the subject land was assigned as house site pattas in favour of the unofficial respondents and they were in possession of their respective house sites does not arise. Hence, there is no violation or disobedience of the orders of this Court on the part of the respondents and as such, the directions of this Hon’ble Court were not violated and requested to close the contempt case.
Having heard the submissions of the respective counsel and upon perusal of the material available on record, it appears that, the claim of the petitioners that they were granted pattas and they were put in possession in respect of their respective allotted plots in land in Sy.No.672-8 of Kollabailu Revenue Village, Madanapalle Mandal, Chittoor District are not supported by any evidence. On the other hand, the house site pattas alleged to have been issued in favour of the petitioners and their possession over the subject land is not supported by any record, more particularly original Assignment Record furnished before this Hon’ble Court, as directed by this Court. The same appears to have been created and fabricated, for which the respondents are taking necessary departmental action against the concerned erring officials. When the foundation of the petitioners' assertion rests on fraudulent or fabricated means, their entitlement to any rights is questionable, let alone invoking contempt proceedings under the pretext that they were in exclusive possession and enjoyment of their respective house sites, while also requesting non-interference from the respondents.
As already discussed in detail in W.P.No.3661 of 2015, the petitioners were never in possession and enjoyment of the house site plots, and any such claims existed merely on paper, likely generated with the assistance of certain departmental officers. Moreover, there is no iota of evidence with respect to the allegation of the petitioners that the official respondents interfered with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners.
On overall consideration of this factual position, it appears that the respondents never interfered with the possession and enjoyment of the house site plots. However, the official respondents have initiated departmental enquiry against the misdeeds committed by the 2nd respondent/contemnor. This Court is expressing it displeasure and anguish towards the attitude of the 2nd Respondent.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, in the considered opinion of this Court, there is no willful disobedience or violation on the part of the respondents.
Accordingly, the contempt case is closed.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall also stand closed.