HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY CONTEMPT CASE No.537 of 2010 Date : 15.12.2011 Between: Smt. G.Parvathi Rao. …Petitioner And Sri T.Devendar Reddy, Secretary, Jubilee Hills Co-operative Building Society Ltd., Hyderabad & others. …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY CONTEMPT CASE No.537 of 2010 ORDER : This contempt case is filed by respondent No.1 in W.P.No.21505 of 2000, alleging willful disobedience to the orders passed by this Court in the above said writ petition on 29th of December 2006. 2. The petitioner is a member of the 1st respondent- house building society with membership No.3488. The said Society allotted a plot bearing No.204, admeasuring 1100 square yards to the petitioner and the same was registered in her favour on 05.03.1980. The petitioner made a request to the respondent-Society to additionally allot two pieces of land adjoining the plot registered in her favour. Alleging that inspite of allotment of such pieces of land to the petitioner and also payment of development charges by her the 1st respondent-Society failed to execute the registered sale deed, and further, seeking to restrain it from interfering with her possession, the petitioner raised a dispute under Sections 61 and 62 of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964, before the 3rd respondent-Arbitrator. It was also the allegation of the petitioner before the Arbitrator that adjoining land is sought to be converted into a plot with plot No.203, to sell the same to third parties. The Arbitrator disposed of the matter by award, dated 12th August 1984, granting injunction restraining the 1st respondent-Society from interfering with the possession of petitioner over the entire land i.e. 2164 square yards as delineated in the sketch filed by the petitioner, with consequential direction to register the entire area of plot No.204 in favour of the petitioner. As against the same, the 1st respondent- Society carried the matter by way of appeal in CTA.No.11 of 1995 before the Co-operative Tribunal, which was dismissed by order dated 1st of May 2000. As against the same, the 1st respondent-Society has filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.21505 of 2000. In the said writ petition, it was the case of the 1st respondent that the very allotment of additional pieces of land admeasuring 300 square yards on Northern side and 700 square yards on the Western side of the plot registered in favour of the petitioner itself is illegal and contrary to the bylaws. This Court, by recording a finding that unless and until the 1st respondent-Society takes appropriate decision as per law, it cannot interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner, dismissed the writ petition, confirming the order of the appellate Tribunal and award of the Arbitrator passed in ARC.No.27 of 1991. Alleging violation of said orders, this contempt case is filed. 3. The Secretary of the 1st respondent-Society has filed counter affidavit. In the counter, while denying the allegation of petitioner regarding violation of orders of this Court, it is stated that after receipt of legal notice, dated 24th January 2010, issued on behalf of petitioner, the Society got issued a reply notice, dated 17th February 2010, which was received by the petitioner’s representative on 19.02.2010. It is stated in the said reply notice that in view of the legal opinion obtained by them, they have decided to take appropriate action in accordance with law. In the counter, it is stated that the petitioner was allotted plot No.204 in Block-I, admeasuring 1100 square yards and the said plot was registered vide sale deed, dated 05.03.1980, upon receipt of the total sale consideration. It is further stated that a member of the Society is not entitled for a 2nd plot. It is stated that the petitioner is claiming additional area of 528 square yards and 700 square yards, which includes, plot No.203, green belt and common areas, as such, she is not entitled to hold any additional area in the Society. It is stated that they have already taken steps for cancellation of allotment of additional area. In the counter, pleading that the 1st respondent-Society has not violated any orders of this Court, sought for dismissal of the contempt petition. 4. Additional affidavit and reply affidavits are also filed by the petitioner, stating that further notices issued by the 1st respondent-Society are also contemptuous. 5. Heard Sri M.V.Durga Prasad, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri C.V.R.Rudra Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent-Society. 6. In this contempt case, it is argued by the learned counsel Sri M.V.Durga Prasad, appearing for the petitioner that inspite of dismissal of the writ petition filed by the 1st respondent-Society and receipt of legal notice issued on behalf of petitioner on 24th January 2010, by not registering the sale deed for the entire land, the 1st respondent-Society has disobeyed the orders of this Court. It is contended that in view of the orders of this Court, it is obligatory on the part of respondents not to interfere with the entire area of 2164 square yards of plot allotted to the petitioner and also to register the entire land in her favour. As the 1st respondent-Society has willfully and deliberately violated the directions of this Court, it is liable to be punished for contempt of Court. The learned counsel, in support of his argument, has relied on Rama Narang Vs. Ramesh Narang and another[1] and in Kapildeo Prasad Sah and others Vs. State of Bihar and others[2]. 7. On the other hand, it is submitted by Sri C.V.R. Rudra Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent-Society that the whole of the plot area which is allotted to the petitioner is registered in her name and the very allotment of additional pieces of land itself is illegal and transfer of any other plot is contrary to the bylaws of the Society. It is submitted by the learned counsel that while disposing of the writ petition, this Court has merely confirmed the award of the Tribunal without any directions, as such, it is not open for the petitioner to plead that any of the orders passed by this Court are violated, attracting the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It is contended that if there is an Award, while it is open for the petitioner to seek for its execution, but at the same time, in the absence of any directions from this Court, it cannot be said that the 1st respondent- Society has willfully and deliberately violated the orders of this Court. It is further submitted that while dismissing the writ petition, this Court itself observed that unless and until the 1st respondent-Society takes an appropriate decision as per law, it cannot interfere with the possession of petitioner, as such, it is always open for the Society to take steps in accordance with the bylaws. 8. In this case, it is not in dispute that the original plot admeasuring 1100 square yards, which is allotted to the petitioner, is covered by plot No.204 and it is transferred by way of registered sale deed. On the ground that there are additional pieces of land adjoining the said allotted plot, she sought for allotment of such areas also. It is true that initially, the Society has allotted such areas also, but it is the case of 1st respondent-Society that such areas are covered by green area, nala and another plot. Further, the Arbitrator has passed an award, directing the 1st respondent-Society not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner herein, over the entire area and also to take further consequential steps for registration of plot No.204, as claimed by the petitioner. The said Award of the Arbitrator is confirmed by the appellate Tribunal, and further, the writ petition filed by the 1st respondent-Society is also dismissed by this Court. I have carefully perused the judgment rendered by this Court in W.P.No.2008 of 2008. The said writ petition is dismissed confirming the order of the appellate Tribunal. In the writ petition, no directions are issued by this Court, so as to allege that the Secretary of the 1st respondent-Society has violated the directions of this Court. Under Section 71-A of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964, an Award passed by the Arbitrator is executable one. It is open for the petitioner to seek execution of award in accordance with law, but, in the absence of any specific directions from this Court, it cannot be said that the 1st respondent-Society has willfully and deliberately violated the orders of this Court. The confirmation of the award of the Arbitrator simplicitor cannot be construed as any direction against the Society to accept the plea of the petitioner that the 1st respondent has violated the orders of this Court passed in W.P.No.2008 of 2008. 9. Coming to the judgments relied on by the learned counsel for petitioner, in the case of Rama Narang (1 supra), while considering the violation of the consent decree in civil proceedings, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that all decrees and orders are executable under the Code of Civil Procedure, but merely because an order or decree is executable, the same would not take away the Court’s jurisdiction to deal with a matter under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, provided the Court is satisfied that the violation of the order or decree is such that, if proved, it would warrant punishment under Section 13 of the Act. 10. In the case of Kapildeo Prasad Sah (2 supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that since the punishment for contempt is of far-reaching consequence, these powers should be invoked only when a clear case of willful disobedience of the Court’s order has been made out. Whether disobedience is willful in a particular case, depends on the facts and circumstances of that case. It is further held in the aforesaid judgment that the power to punish for contempt is necessary for the maintenance of effective legal system. It is to be exercised, to prevent perversion of the course of justice. 11. As held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgments, whether there is any violation of the orders of the Court in a particular case or not, depends on facts of each case. It is true that merely because a decree is executable, that will not take away the power of this Court to exercise its power under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, provided the Court satisfies about the violation of the order or decree as alleged. Coming to the facts of the case on hand, this Court is of the view that in the absence of any directions, it is not open to the petitioner to seek for punishing the 1st respondent-Society alleging that it has violated the orders of this Court. Mere confirmation of the award of the Arbitrator and the order of the appellate Tribunal does not amount to issuing of any directions by this Court. In the absence of any directions by this Court in the writ petition, this Court is of the view that this is not a case where the plea of the petitioner is to be accepted to the effect that the 1st respondent-Society has violated the orders of this Court, attracting the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It is also to be noticed that this Court has passed orders in W.P.No.2008 of 2008 as early as on 29th of December 2006, and this contempt case is filed on 28th of March 2010 by referring to a notice of contempt issued on behalf of petitioner on 24th January 2010. Therefore, this Court is of the view that no case is made out by the petitioner in support of the relief sought for, to punish the 1st respondent-Society under the Contempt of Courts Act, for violation of the orders of this Court in W.P.No.2008 of 2008. 12. For the aforesaid reasons, this contempt case is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY 15th December 2011 ajr [1] (2006) 11 SCC 114 [2] (1999) 7 SCC 569