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

The High Court then went on to observe asfrom any angle the respondents clearly disobeyed the orders of this Court and they committed contempt of Court. It is no doubt true that construction over the land in question has been taken place. But, what is the relief that has to be granted to the petitioner? No purpose would be served to the petitioner if there is a direction to handover vacant possession of the property of the petitioner. The order of demolition of the buildings so constructed over the land in question and restituting the said land to the petitioner would cause great hardships to the respondents.To put an end to the litigation once for all and since the respondents have already made constructions over the land in question by flouting the orders passed by this Court and no purpose will be served if the respondents are directed to be punished as some of them as on today either transferred or retired from service, we feel it appropriate to direct the respondent-authorities to pay compensation to the petitioner in the contempt case at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per sq. yard as valued by the State itself in the application filed U/s.8 of the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act and numbered as L.G.C. No. 25 of 2000 or any other reasonable amount in lieu of directing the respondents to redeliver possession of the land in question to the petitioner, in case the proceedings in L.G.C. No. 25 of 2000 go in favour of the petitioner. The question of maintainability, jurisdiction, propriety or competency to continue the case in L.G.C. No. 25 of 2000 in view of the earlier proceedings and observations made therein including the directions to institute a civil suit to adjudicate the title to the property is kept open to be considered by the Special Court. However, implementation of this order is stayed for a period of six weeks from today.Subject to the observations indicated above, the contempt case and the contempt applications are closed. There shall be no order as to costs.It is clear from the aforesaid order that instead of directing demolition of the construction already made and/or punishing the contemnors, the High Court felt it more appropriate to pass an equitable order directing payment of compensation to the petitioner in the Contempt Case at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per sq. yard as valued by the State itself in an application filed under Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, against the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent herein. The said direction was, however, given along with a rider that such compensation would be paid only in the event the land grabbing case was dismissed in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent herein. Certain other directions were also given regarding the question of maintainability, jurisdiction, propriety or competence of the petitioners in the land grabbing case to continue the same in view of earlier directions given by the High Court, including the direction to institute a civil suit to adjudicate the title to the property. The implementation of the order was stayed for a period of six weeks from the date of the order presumably with the intention of allowing the parties to contest the order before a higher forum.3. It is the said order of the High Court which is the subject matter of challenge in these appeals.4. While Civil Appeal Nos.2200-2201 of 2001 have been filed by the officials found by the High Court to have committed contempt of Court, Civil Appeal No.2202 of 2001 has been filed by the writ petitioner, Smt. G. Kalavathi, being aggrieved by the amount of compensation fixed by the High Court at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per square yard.5. In order to appreciate the submissions advanced on behalf of respective parties and the circumstances in which the impugned order came to be passed, a brief outline of the facts leading to the passing of the said order is set out hereinbelow.6. The predecessor-in-interest of the present respondents, one Smt. G. Kalavathi, came to be the absolute owner and possessor of 10 acres of land in Survey No. 129/36/1, being part of Survey No.403 of Shaikpet Village, Road No. 13, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. It was her case before the High Court that she had purchased the said property under a registered sale deed dated 11th February, 1971, from one Mr. Papaiah, who had purchased the same by a registered sale deed dated 28th February, 1963, from one Venkat Swamy. Venkat Swamy is said to have acquired the property by a patta issued by the concerned authorities in the year 1340 Fasli, equivalent to the year 1930 of the Christian era. From the description of the property contained in the order impugned in this appeal, the said property is bounded on the North by a Nala (Government land); on the South by Road No. 13; on the East by land in Survey No. 129/75 belonging to M/s Hyderabad Industries Limited and in the West by the land belonging to Kazi Mohd. Hussain in Survey No. 129/36.7. The respondent No.1 herein leased out the said land measuring ten acres to M/s Hyderabad Industries Limited by a registered lease deed dated 27th June, 1971. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Golconda Mandal, issued a notice to the Respondent No.1 on 20th June, 1986 under Section 6 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905, calling upon the said respondent to vacate the land within 3 days from the date of receipt of the notice. Challenging the said notice, the respondent filed Writ Petition No. 11714 of 1986 for a declaration that the action of the Mandal Revenue Officer in issuing the notice was illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and also praying that the said officer be restrained from interfering with her possession over the land. The said writ petition was allowed and the notices issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer under Sections 6 and 7 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act was quashed with leave to the Government to file a suit to get its title established.8. The writ appeal filed by the said Government through the Mandal Revenue Officer, Golconda, Hyderabad, was also dismissed and status quo was directed to be maintained for a period of three months from the date of the judgment, namely, 14th September, 1995, to enable the Government to take appropriate steps. In spite of the time granted to the State Government to take appropriate steps in the matter, no steps were taken by the Government to establish its title over the land in question by filing a civil suit. On the other hand, it has been alleged on behalf of the respondent No.1 that as soon as she came to learn about the construction being carried on by the appellants herein over the land in question, she caused telegraphic notices to be sent to the appellant on 20th November, 1999 and 23rd November, 1999, together with a registered legal notice issued on 26th November, 1999, calling upon the appellants herein to stop the construction work on the land. As the appellant did not stop the construction work purportedly in disobedience of the orders passed by the High Court, the respondent No.1 was compelled to file a contempt petition. On this aspect of the matter, it has been observed in the impugned judgment that the State initiated proceedings against the respondent No.1 under Section 8 of the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982, in December, 1999, as a counter-blast to the contempt case alleging that the land in question which was under the occupation of the respondent No.1 was government land.9. It is on the basis of the aforesaid facts as disclosed before it that the Division Bench came to the conclusion that the authorities started construction even after the orders passed by the High Court in the writ petition without first approaching the civil court for declaration of its title. The Division Bench also observed that the said act of the appellants herein amply prove that there was a deliberate and wilful act of disobedience of the orders of the said Court by the Mandal Revenue Officer and other superior authorities and as such they had committed contempt of court. It is thereafter that the observations are made relating to payment of compensation, which have been set out hereinbefore.

Court's reasoning:
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.