Case: Banwar Lal  Vs. G. Kalavathi (Dead) By Lrs.

that the High Court had erred in restricting payment of compensation till after the decision in the land grabbing case, since it had found that the same had been filed only as a counter blast to the contempt petition filed by the writ petitioner.21. Mr. Nariman submitted that there was no ground to interfere with the findings of the High Court or the decision arrived at therein in the contempt proceedings, but the compensation computed was liable to be reconsidered in the light of the admission made by the appellants themselves in Civil Appeal Nos.2200-01 of 2001.22. Since this appeal arises out of orders passed by the High Court on the contempt petition filed on behalf of respondents in Contempt Application No. 1563 of 1999 and CC No.1819/1999, it would be in the fitness of things to first of all consider whether the High Court was justified in holding that the appellants had violated the order dated 14.9.1995 passed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.742 of 1989 filed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Golconda Mandal, Hyderabad. 23. As has been indicated hereinbefore the respondents herein challenged the notice dated 20.6.1986 issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Golconda Mandal, Hyderabad, under Section 6 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905 and the learned single Judge quashed the same for the reasons indicated in his judgment and order dated 14.10.1988. 24. In the Writ Appeal filed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Golconda Mandal, Hyderabad, the Division Bench of the High Court did not interfere with the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge upon holding that the learned Single Judge had rightly allowed the writ petition. However, while dismissing the writ appeal the Division Bench directed the status quo to be maintained for a period of three months from the date of the order to enable the Government to take appropriate steps in the matter. 25. It is in respect of this order that the contempt petition was filed and the Division Bench also arrived at a finding that the appellant herein had committed contempt of Court by violating the said order.26. We are unable to agree with the reasoning of the Division Bench in the impugned judgment in holding that the appellants had committed contempt of the said order dated 14.9.1995. There is no ambiguity that while the direction to maintain status quo for three months were given on 14.9.1995, the contempt petition was filed only in October, 1999. The period for which status quo was directed to be maintained came to an end on 14.12.1995 and there is nothing on record to indicate that the order of status quo was ever extended. The fact that construction was going on in the land in question came to the knowledge of the respondents herein on 19.11.1999 when Smt. G. Kalavathi visited the property and thereafter steps were set in motion for filing of the contempt petition. Since there is nothing to indicate whether the construction work was being carried on during the period when the order of status quo was in force and the contempt petition was filed almost four years after the order of status quo ceased to operate, it is difficult for us to appreciate as to how the Division Bench of the High Court could have found the appellants herein to have committed contempt of Court. The findings of the High Court in respect of the same must be held to be contrary to the materials on record. 27. This now brings us to the other limb of the order impugned in these appeals. 28. From the facts as stated hereinabove it is clear that M/s Hyderabad Industries Limited was in possession of five different plots of land, out of which three plots measuring 13 acres and 13 guntas had been purchased by the said company. Of the remaining two plots, the said company was also in occupation of 10 acres of land which had been leased to it by Smt. G. Kalavathi. It is also apparent that the lands enclosed within the boundary wall of the guest house of M/s Hyderabad Industries Limited were the lands forming the subject matter of the three sale deeds. In other words, the land leased to the company by Smt. G. Kalavathi was part of the 19 acres of land which was the subject matter of the notice issue by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Golconda Mandal, Hyderabad, on 20.6.1986 under Section 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905, which was quashed in Writ Petition No.11714 of 1986 and had been utilised for constructing the ministers quarters.29. From the submissions made and also from the findings in the impugned judgment it is also clear that the said 19 acres of land have already been utilised for construction of ministers quarters and as rightly pointed out by the High Court would cause great hardship to the respondents in the event a direction was given to them to restore the land to the respondents. 30. In the other appeal, being Civil Appeal No.2202 of 2001, filed by Smt. G. Kalavathi, one of the questions raised is whether the High Court was justified in directing payment of compensation at the rate of Rs.5000 per square yard subject to the condition that the same be paid after the determination of the land grabbing case filed by the State against the respondents under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing Provisions Act, 1982. It has been urged by Mr. Nariman that the appellants had themselves assessed the value of the lands in question to be more than Rs.20,000/- per square yard in Ground S of their Special Leave Petition filed in 2001 and hence the amount decided as compensation by the High Court was not commensurate with the value assessed by the appellants themselves, and should therefore, be increased. 31. Considering the ground realities and the assessment made by the State authorities themselves, there appears to be some substance in Mr. Narimans submissions.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]25. It is in respect of this order that the contempt petition was filed and the Division Bench also arrived at a finding that the appellant herein had committed contempt of Court by violating the said order.26. We are unable to agree with the reasoning of the Division Bench in the impugned judgment in holding that the appellants had committed contempt of the said order dated 14.9.1995. There is no ambiguity that while the direction to maintain status quo for three months were given on 14.9.1995, the contempt petition was filed only in October, 1999. The period for which status quo was directed to be maintained came to an end on 14.12.1995 and there is nothing on record to indicate that the order of status quo was ever extended. The fact that construction was going on in the land in question came to the knowledge of the respondents herein on 19.11.1999 when Smt. G. Kalavathi visited the property and thereafter steps were set in motion for filing of the contempt petition. Since there is nothing to indicate whether the construction work was being carried on during the period when the order of status quo was in force and the contempt petition was filed almost four years after the order of status quo ceased to operate, it is difficult for us to appreciate as to how the Division Bench of the High Court could have found the appellants herein to have committed contempt of Court. The findings of the High Court in respect of the same must be held to be contrary to the materials on record.From the facts as stated hereinabove it is clear that M/s Hyderabad Industries Limited was in possession of five different plots of land, out of which three plots measuring 13 acres and 13 guntas had been purchased by the said company. Of the remaining two plots, the said company was also in occupation of 10 acres of land which had been leased to it by Smt. G. Kalavathi. It is also apparent that the lands enclosed within the boundary wall of the guest house of M/s Hyderabad Industries Limited were the lands forming the subject matter of the three sale deeds. In other words, the land leased to the company by Smt. G. Kalavathi was part of the 19 acres of land which was the subject matter of the notice issue by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Golconda Mandal, Hyderabad, on 20.6.1986 under Section 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905, which was quashed in Writ Petition No.11714 of 1986 and had been utilised for constructing the ministers quarters.29. From the submissions made and also from the findings in the impugned judgment it is also clear that the said 19 acres of land have already been utilised for construction of ministers quarters and as rightly pointed out by the High Court would cause great hardship to the respondents in the event a direction was given to them to restore the land to the respondents.Considering the ground realities and the assessment made by the State authorities themselves, there appears to be some substance in Mr. Narimans submissions.