Telangana High Court
Sri Hari Sach Dev Died Per Lrs vs Sri Galajar Natrajan on 10 June, 2025
* HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY
+ Contempt Case No.143 of 2011
% Date: 10.06.2025
% Between:
# Sri Hari Sach Dev (died per LRs)
and others. ... Petitioners
AND
$ Sri Gulzar Natarajan,
District Collector, Hyderabad
and another.
... Respondents
! Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri C. Hanumantha Rao.
^ Counsel for the Respondents : Sri Pottigari Sridhar Reddy, Special
Government Pleader attached to the
office of learned Advocate General
> HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
1. (2003) 11 SCC 1
2. (1999) 7 SCC 569
3. AIR 1978 SC 1014
2
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
CONTEMPT CASE No.143 of 2011
ORDER:
This Contempt Case is filed alleging non-compliance of the
order, dated 13.08.2009 passed by this Court in W.P.No.4615 of
2000.
2. The petitioner herein filed W.P.No.4615 of 2000 seeking a writ
of mandamus to approve retainable area of 1000 sq.yards as
requested by him on 14.09.1999 and to pay compensation for the
excess land of 1826.76 sq.mtrs. It is stated that the petitioner is
absolute owner and possessor of land admeasuring 2826.76 sq.mtrs
in Sy.No.387 situated at Shaikpet Village and after the enactment of
Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short “ULC Act“),
he filed declaration in C.C.No.E2/1869/76. After due enquiry, the
orders under Section 8(4) of the ULC Act were passed and final
statement under Section 9 of the ULC Act, was issued declaring that
the petitioner is entitled to hold 1000 sq.mtrs as retainable area
under Section 4(1)(b) of the ULC Act. Thereafter, the possession of
surplus land was taken over by following due process of law on
06.02.1997. This Court, after considering the counter affidavit and
the material on record, while observing that the retainable area of the
petitioner was assigned in favour of third parties and thereby the
3
petitioner’s right to enjoy the retainable area was deprived under
Section 4(1) (b) of the Act, disposed of writ petition vide order dated
13.08.2009, with the following directions:
“..Under those circumstances, the District Collector, Hyderabad District is
directed to depute an Officer, not below the rank of Revenue Divisional
Officer, to conduct spot inspection of the subject land within 15 days
from the date of receipt of this order;
1) To identify the surplus land and the retainable land of the petitioner
and draw a sketch/map.
2) What was the area of the surplus land allotted to others.
3) Whether any land is still vacant as on date.
4) If there is any vacant land is available, the same shall be allowed to
be occupied by the petitioner as retainable area.
5) If no open land is available, the Revenue Divisional Officer shall
identify the retainable area and the District Collector shall hand over the
same to the petitioner by vacating the illegal occupants, if any.
6) If no such land is available, the respondents shall invoke land
acquisition proceedings for grant of compensation under the Act, as the
petitioner was deprived of his retainable land of 1000 sq.mtrs. illegally.
The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.”
3. Alleging that the respondent has willfully disobeyed the orders
of this Court in identifying the surplus land or for payment of
compensation by invoking the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act,
this Contempt Case is filed on 11.02.2011.
4. After receipt of the notice, a counter affidavit 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 filed
beyond the period prescribed under Section 20 of the Contempt of
4
Courts Act and the petitioner having stated in the affidavit
accompanying the contempt case that he has personally met the
respondent on 05.02.2009 and made a request for implementation of
the order, filed the contempt case on 10.02.2011, which is much
beyond the period of limitation. The respondent while denying the
contents of the affidavit filed in support of contempt case, prayed for
dismissal of the contempt case on the sole ground of limitation.
5. This Contempt Case was admitted on 07.03.2012 and pending
adjudication of the same, the sole petitioner died on 27.08.2011 and
the Legal Heirs of the deceased petitioner have been brought on
record as petitioner Nos.2 to 4 vide orders dated 17.02.2017 passed
in Application Nos.1460/2015 and 1461/2015. During the
pendency of this contempt case, the sole respondent in Contempt
Case was relieved from his post. Thereafter, an Application vide
No.266/2017 was filed to add the Successor Officer as respondent
No.2 and the same was allowed. When this Contempt Case is taken
up for final hearing, neither the respondent No.1 or respondent No.2
are proper parties to subject them for rigmarole of contempt trial.
6. Sri Pottigari Sridhar Reddy, learned Special Government
Pleader attached to the office of learned Advocate General placed
reliance on the counter affidavit filed by the respondent and
submitted that for implementation of the orders, passed in
5
W.P.No.4615/2000, the respondent deputed the Revenue Divisional
Officer (RDO), Secunderabad, 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 over to the petitioner as
retainable area in terms of the sketch drawn by the petitioner.
7. The respondents having stated that they are not in a position
to identify and localize the retainable area, ought to have complied
with condition No.6 of the orders passed in W.P.No.4615/2000,
wherein this Court specifically directed the respondents that if no
such land is available, they shall invoke land acquisition proceedings
and pay compensation to the petitioner for depriving him of the
retainable land.
8. In this context, it is necessary to examine the object of Urban
Land Ceiling Regulation Act, 1976. The legislature to see that the
urban resource/urban land to be distributed to various sections of
the Society and to control the speculative transactions have enacted
the ULC Act and it is made mandatory for filing of the declaration for
the vacant lands within 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 under Section 10(3) of the ULC Act. In the counter affidavit
filed in the writ petition, it is stated that after issuance of notification
6
under Section 10(5) of the Act, the orders under Section 10(6) of the
Act, were issued on 06.02.1997, authorizing the Enquiry Officer to
take possession of the surplus land to an extent of 1826.76 sq.mtrs
and accordingly, possession was taken on 31.03.1997 and handed
over to Mandal Revenue Officer. It appears from the record that there
is a dispute between the declarant and his brother, who filed Writ
Petition No.2339/1998 for retainable area and the State is not in a
position to pass an award under section 11(8) of the Act. The record
further reveals that there is a dispute relating to identification/
localization of lands on ground as the location and the map prepared
by the petitioner are not tallying. A careful examination of the
contents of the contempt affidavit and the counter affidavit would
reveal that there is serious dispute with regard to
identification/localization 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 judgments held that to
punish the contemnors for violation of the orders, two essential
conditions viz., “wilful and deliberate” action must be proved beyond
reasonable doubt.
7
10. In Ashok Paper Kamgar Union vs. Dharam Godha and
others 1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the concept of ‘wilful
disobedience’ of an order of the Court. It was stated that ‘wilful’
means an act or omission which is done voluntarily and with the
specific intent to do something the law forbids or with the specific
intent to fail to do something the law 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 motive for the purpose. It was observed that the act or
omission has to be judged having regard to the facts and
circumstances of each case.
11. In Kapildeo Prasad Sah and Others vs. State of Bihar and
Others 2 the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that for holding a
person to have committed contempt, it must be shown that there
was wilful disobedience of the judgment 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, and as such,
they should be resorted to only when a clear case of wilful
disobedience of the court’s order is made out. A petitioner who
complains breach of Court’s order must allege deliberate or
contumacious disobedience of the Court’s order and if such
1
(2003) 11 SCC 1
2
(1999) 7 SCC 569
8
allegation is proved, contempt can be said to have been made out,
not otherwise. It was noted that power to punish for contempt is
intended to maintain effective legal system.
12. In the instant case, the present Contempt Case arises out of
the orders dated 13.08.2009 passed in Writ Petition No.4615/2000.
Admittedly, the Contempt Case was filed on 23.08.2010. The
Registry returned the Contempt Case with certain objections on the
same day. The petitioner resubmitted the contempt case on
10.02.2011 along with condone delay application vide Application
No.130/2011 and this Court allowed the said application on
11.02.2011. This Contempt Case was admitted on 07.03.2012. Even
if the period of limitation is reckoned from the date on which the
delay in representing the contempt case was condoned i.e.,
11.02.2011, the contempt case was admitted only on 07.03.2012,
which is clearly beyond the limitation period prescribed under
Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act. The Hon’ble Apex Court
and this Court in catena of judgments while referring to the Section
17 read with Rule 18 of the Contempt of Courts Act, has categorically
held that mere issuance of notice/notice before admission within the
period of one year does not stop running of the time of one year as
prescribed under the Contempt of Courts Act. The Hon’ble Supreme
9
Court in Purushotham Das vs. B.S.Dilan 3 held that no contempt
proceedings can be initiated by a Court after the expiry of one year
from the date of the alleged act of contempt, as prescribed under
Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Even if an
application seeking initiation of contempt proceedings is filed within
the prescribed period of one year, such application would be
automatically barred by limitation if the Court fails to take
cognizance or apply its judicial mind to the alleged act of contempt
before the expiry of the said period. For the said reasons 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 petitioner failed to
establish wilful deliberate action or indifferent attitude on the part of
the respondents. Further, the letter dated 10.10.1985 addressed by
the petitioner to the Special Officer and Competent Authority, would
show that the petitioner admitted that the land in question has been
occupied unauthorisedly and illegally by hut mates since 1967 or
1968 and the occupants perfected their title by adverse possession (A
copy of the said letter is filed as additional material papers in the
present Contempt Case).
3
AIR 1978 SC 1014
10
13. Be that as it may, this Court while exercising the powers under
Section 23 of the Act, 1971 read with Articles 215 and 227 of the
Constitution of India and by Section 129 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, framed the Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of
Subordinate Court and of the High Court under the Contempt of
Courts’ Act, 1971. Rule 27 specifically states that the Court may
pass such orders as the Justice of the case requires. Admittedly, this
Court while disposing the writ petition observed that if the
respondents are not in a position to re-deliver the retainable area of
1000 sq.yards, they shall invoke land acquisition proceedings for
grant of compensation for the said extent of land. The orders of this
Court in W.P.No.4615 of 2000 have attained finality. This Contempt
Case is pending since more than 13 years from the date of
admission. In the meantime, the officer who was arrayed as party
respondent, relieved from his post. Even the officer who was
impleaded vide I.A.No.2 of 2017 also relieved from his post. Keeping
in mind, injustice done to the petitioner and as the respondents have
not complied with the orders, this Court being conferred with the
power under Rule 27 of Contempt of Court Rules, deems it
appropriate to pass appropriate and justifiable orders to uphold the
dignity of the Courts. The power to punish for Contempt of Court’s
order is vital to safeguard the authority and efficiency of the judicial
system. This power is essential for upholding the rule of law and
11
ensuring due compliance by addressing actions that undermine its
authority, obstruct its proceedings, or diminish the public trust and
confidence in the judicial system.
14. Keeping in mind the above principles and in order to meet the
ends of justice, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the District
Collector, Hyderabad, to comply with condition No.6 of the order
dated 13.08.2009 passed in W.P.No.4615/2000 i.e, if no such land is
available, the respondents shall invoke land acquisition proceedings
for grant of compensation under the Act, as the petitioner was
deprived of his retainable land of 1000 sq.mtrs. illegally, as per the
applicable laws as on the date of passing orders, within a period of
six months from the date of receipt of copy of this Order.
15. Accordingly, this Contempt Case is disposed of.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________________
JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
Date: 10.06.2025
Note: L.R Copy to be marked.
(b/o)
scs