THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY C.C. Nos.1898 & 1899 of 2010 Date of Order: 16-12-2011 Between: 1. Dasaro Kalavathi and others ..Petitioners and 1. G.S.Chakravarthi Raju and another ..Respondents The Court made the following Common Order: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY C.C.Nos.1898 & 1899 of 2010 Common order: These contempt cases are directed against the common order dated 18-02-2005 passed in CRPMP Nos.738 and 740 of 2005 in C.R.P.Nos.597 and 599 of 2005 respectively. Originally, the lands in question belong to one Gunde Rao and the petitioners are the protected tenants. While so, the father of Respondents 4 to 7 made an application for grant of patta under Section 38-E of Tenancy Act (for short “the Act”) in File No.196/LRE/75 in respect of Ac.30.00, which was under the cultivation of some of the petitioners/tenants, and obtained Certificate in his favour behind their back. Against grant of Certificate the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Joint Collector, Rangareddy District, who in turn set aside the orders granting of Certificate and remanded the matter to the RDO for fresh disposal. While the matter stood thus, some of the tenants alienated the land for family necessities. The sale deeds contain recital that the petitioners were co-tenants having right in joint protected tenancy. As the prices of the lands increased abnormally in and around the Hyderabad city, the 11th respondent made an application to the M.R.O., Shameerpet willing to purchase the land at market value. Basing on the said application, the M.R.O. gave a report recommending for alienation in favour of the applicant. The respondents 4 to 10 filed an application to the M.R.O. for grant of Succession Certificate under Section 40 of the Act without impleading the persons, who are in actual possession, and ultimately they got the Succession Certificate without giving any notice to the petitioners. They also filed an application for grant of patta under Section 38-E to the RDO, which is pending for certain extent and for certain extent Section 38-E patta was granted without notice the persons interested and against which an appeal was filed before the Joint Collector, R.R.District. The non-official respondents also filed a petition under Section 32 of the Act for recovery of possession against some of the petitioners before the M.R.O., Shameerpet in which notices were issued to some of the petitioners herein. On receipt of the same, the petitioners were shocked about the proceedings initiated behind their back. Immediately they enquired into the matter and noted about the illegal proceedings. Against grant of Succession to the respondents, petitioners herein carried the matter in appeal to the Joint Collector, R.R.District. The appellate authority—Joint Collector without considering all the facts brushed aside the claim of the petitioners and dismissed the appeal holding that the petitioners herein are not protected tenants. Against which the petitioners carried the matter in revision before this Court in C.R.P.Nos.597 and 599 of 2005 in which they also filed CRPMP Nos.738 and 740 of 2005 for suspension of the order of MRO, wherein this Court passed the following order: “Pending further orders, the respondents shall not alienate or change the nature of the land” Contending that the respondents have violated the orders of this Court made in the miscellaneous petitions, the present Contempt Cases have been filed. This Court by order dated 04-02-2011 issued Form-I notices. Pursuant to the same the respondents have filed a counter stating that the 2nd respondent—Company purchased an extent of Ac.10.05 gts. in Sy.No.418 under a registered sale deed, dated 14-05-2003 from one Major P.P.Vasudevan, who in turn purchased the same under a registered sale deed, dated 05-04-1990 from one Smt. R.Lakshmi Narasamma. Similarly, the 2nd respondent—Company purchased an extent of Ac.7.19 gts. of land in Sy.No.419 from Sri Nomula Narasimha Reddy and others under six registered sale deeds which were registered on 14-06-2004. The 2nd respondent—Company did not acquire any land in Sy.No.417. Thus, out of total extent of land in dispute Ac.25.26 gts., for which succession was granted, the 2nd respondent is claiming an extent of Ac.17.24 gts. under registered sale deeds. In order to protect its interest, the 2nd respondent–Company got impleaded as party in the appeals before the Joint Collector, so that no adverse orders could be passed against it. They are sourcing their title through third parties but not through the litigating parties in respect of land in Sy.No.418. Insofar as the land in Sy.No.419 is concerned, the 2nd respondent had purchased the property from the persons who are in possession as protected tenants. The petitioners’ claim that they are the protected tenants was rejected by the Joint Collector and dismissed the appeals. Aggrieved by the same the petitioners and others filed the above C.R.Ps., in which petitioners filed CRPMP Nos.738 and 740 of 2005 seeking suspension of the order passed by the M.R.O., Shameerpet. This Court by interim order dated 11-02-2005 directed that the respondents shall not alienate or change nature of the land. The allegation that the respondents constructed wall across the public road through Sy.Nos.390 and 418 of Bommaraspet village is incorrect. The 2nd respondent—Company acquired certain lands in Sy.Nos.371, 387, 388, 389, 390, 392, 418 and 419 of Bommaraspet village and in order to protect the same the Company constructed walls and also fencing all around the property. The Company obtained permission for conversion of land for non-agricultural purpose from Hyderabad Urban Development Authority (HUDA) and also constructed resorts by name “Leonia Resorts” and the same is also recognized by the Tourism Department as Special Mega Tourism Project. The allegation that the respondents have alienated an extent of 27,100 square yards in Sy.Nos.418 and 419 is not correct and item Nos.20, 21 and 22 in the table do not related to Sy.Nos.418 and 419 of Bommaraspet village. The property sold under documents at Sl.Nos.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 14 do not relate to either Sy.Nos.418 or 419. The 2nd respondent—Company being the possessor of the land divided the same into plots and disposed of since from 2003 onwards. Due to inadvertency of the orders passed by this Court, the lands in Sy.Nos.418 and 419 were also offered for sale, which is a mistake on their part and offered unconditional apology. The 9th petitioner filed reply affidavit stating that originally the lands in Sy.Nos.414, 416, 417, 418, 419, 421, 426, 427, 429 and 430 of Bommaraspet village was jointly cultivated by six families viz., Dasari, Nomula, Pinneti, Padamati, Kandadi and Medi as protected tenants. In the PT register, in respect of the lands in the above survey numbers, Dasari Chandra Reddy, Nomula Laxma Reddy and others are recorded as protected tenants. After the death of Dasari Chandra Reddy and Nomula Laxma Reddy, their legal representatives suppressing the aforesaid facts clandestinely obtained Succession Certificate from the Mandal Revenue Officer, Shameerpet Mandal in respect of Ac.90.26 gts. ignoring the rights of the petitioners as co- tenants. Aggrieved by the same the petitioners filed appeals in Proc. No.F2/3226/2004 and F2/3227/2004 before the Joint Collector, Rangareddy District, which was dismissed on 21-12-2004. Challenging the same C.R.P.Nos.597 of 600 of 2005 was filed and the same are pending. The landlords without offering the land in Sy.No.418 to the petitioners—co-tenants, sold the same to P.V.Vasudean which is mandatory under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. Challenging the said sale the petitioners filed Proc.No.A2/2225/1992 before the R.D.O., R.R.District (East). In the meanwhile, the legal representatives of Dasari Chandra Reddy and Nomula Laxma Reddy suppressing the proceedings pending before the RDO filed surrender proceedings, surrendering the land in favour of respondents, which was accepted by the M.R.O., Shameerpet Mandal. Challenging the said surrender the petitioners filed Appeal No.5121/2004 before the Joint Collector, R.R.District and the same is pending. While so, the R.D.O., by his order dated 07-01-2008 dismissed the said proceedings as infructuous. Aggrieved by the same they filed Appeal Proc.No.F2/2374/2004 and F2/2375/2004 before the Joint Collector, R.R.District which were allowed on 26-12-2009 and the orders of the RDO were set aside and both the parties were directed to make appropriate application before the competent authority and the same is pending. During the pendency of Appeal proc.No.3226 and 3227/2004 the RDO, Rangareddy East granted Ownership Certificate dated 05-06-2004 to the legal representatives of D.Chandra Reddy and N.Narasimha Reddy in respect of Ac.3.30 gts. and Ac.3.29 gts. respectively ignoring the claim of the petitioners as co-tenants. Against which the petitioners filed appeal No.F2/3375/2004 before the Joint Collector, Rangareddy District and the same is pending. The alleged registered sale deeds executed in favour of the 2nd respondent--Company are all void as they are executed in contravention of Section 48-A of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. It is stated that a public road passes from Upperpalli to Ponnala village through Bommaraspet agricultural lands and the same is clearly shown in the village map of Bommaraspet village and Survey of India map. The said road is the only approach road for the villagers of Bommaraspet. The Collector, Rangareddy District through his proceedings dated 23- 03-2005 held that the road in question is continuously used since many years and is also recorded in the village map of Bommaraspet and directed the respondents to break open the compound wall. The revision petition filed by the respondents against the said orders was dismissed by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.2039 dated 24-10-2005. Questioning the said G.O. the respondents filed W.P.No.46 of 2006 and the same is pending. As the Government suggested a compromise in the said G.O., the petitioners and other affected persons filed W.P.No.26233 of 2005 which is also pending. The act of respondents in applying for and obtained permission for conversion of land for non-agricultural purposes from HUDA and construction of resorts amounts to violation of orders passed by this court. The registered sale deeds mentioned at Sl.Nos.1 to 22 executed by the respondents in violation of the orders of this court dated 18-02-2005 are all nonest and void as per the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in SURJIT SINGH v. HARBANS SINGH (1995) 6 SCC 50). Hence, the respondents may be punished for violation of the orders passed by this Court in CRPMP No.738 of 2005 in CRP No. 597 of 2005 and CRPMP No. 740 of 2005 in C.R.P.No.599 of 2005. Sri M.P.Chandramouli, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that it is admitted by the respondents they have deliberately executed the sale deeds; so no lenience can be shown to them and they are liable to be punished for violating the interim orders and it is not open for them to contend that plots in Sy.No.418 and 419 were not alienated which is evident from the recitals in the sale deeds. Per contra, Sri B.Adinarayana Rao, learned counsel for the respondents contends that two appeals filed before the Joint Collector in Case Nos.3226/2004 and 3227/2004 are against the orders of the Mandal Revenue Officer in case No.A30/2003, dated 14-02-2003 in respect of land in Sy.Nos.417, 418 and 419 admeasuring Ac.25.26 gts. and Sy.Nos.414, 416, 417, 418, 421, 426, 429, 430 admeasuring Ac.65.00 and Sy.Nos.20, 21, 22 shown in the table do not relate to either Sy.No.418 or Sy.No.419 and the property sold under documents mentioned at Sl.Nos.1,2,3, 4, 5, 7 and 14 do not relate either in Sy.No.418 or Sy.No.419. The orders before the M.R.O. against which appeals are filed are confined to Sy.Nos.7, 5, and 6 (old) 417, 418 and 419 (new) pertains to only sanction of succession of protected tenancy rights where succession was granted in favour of some persons; and out of Ac.25.26 gts. the respondents have purchased Ac.10.05 gts. in Sy.No.418 and Ac.7.19 gts. in Sy.No.419; they did not acquire any land in Sy.No.417. Out of total extent Ac.25.26 gts., the respondents have acquired Ac.17.24 gts. under registered sale deeds and in fact, the same was not subject matter of sale; the other lands purchased by the respondents together with Sy.Nos.418 and 419 made into plots but while executing sale deeds inadvertently the said survey numbers i.e. 418 and 419 are also mentioned in the sale deeds. Thus, the plots covered under sale deeds do not fall in Sy.No.418 and 419. The said contention though appears to be attractive but cannot be accepted unless it is identified that the lands do not fall under Sy.Nos.418 and 419. Admittedly, there is dispute between the parties as to whether succession granted in favour of vendors’ of the respondents is valid or not. This Court categorically injected the respondents from alienating or change the nature of land pending disposal of the revisions. Therefore, minimum diligence is required from the respondents that they should seek clarification from the Court mentioning that the lands, which are to be alienated under the registered sale deeds, do not form part of the Sy.Nos.418 or 419 and the same falls in different survey numbers and also seek permission to execute the sale deeds for the land adjacent to Sy.Nos.418 and 419. Having executed sale deeds in favour of third parties showing plots covered by above survey numbers, it is not open for the respondents to contend that the lands in Sy.Nos.418 and 419 is not the subject matter of alienation and they have not violated the orders of this Court. When the recitals in the sale deeds do not indicate that the sale of plots effected do not form part of Sy.Nos.418 and 419 and not rectified the same by executing rectification deeds to purge themselves from proceedings, they cannot wriggle out from the contempt proceedings as the same amounts to violation of injunction granted by this Court. Therefore, they are found guilty of contempt of court and liable to be punished for violating the orders. Accordingly, they are punished for violation of the interim orders passed by this Court and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.25,000/- (twenty five thousand only) each payable to the A.P. State Legal Services Authority, Hyderabad within two weeks from today. In default of payment of fine amount, the respondents are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one week. The Contempt Cases are accordingly ordered. _________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J. 16-12-2011 Murthy