http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  4649-4650 of 2004

PETITIONER: Special Deputy Collector (L.A.)

RESPONDENT: N. Vasudeva Rao & Ors

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 28/11/2007

BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

CIVIL APPEAL NOs.       4649-4650 OF 2004

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

                                                             Challenge in these appeals is to the order passed by a  Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court disposing of  four Letters Patent Appeals i.e. LPA Nos. 184 and 185 of 2002 and  33 and 34 of 2003, filed by the appellants.

Background facts need to be noted in brief before dealing  with the rival contentions. The land in question to an extent of 24 acres 82 cents is  Government land which was said to have been assigned to the  respondents herein on the basis of D Form pattas. As per the  terms and conditions of the pattas, whenever the land is required  for any public purpose, the same can be resumed by the  Government on payment of certain ex-gratia amount.

The concerned Executive Engineer SRBC Division,  Koilakuntla is said to have sent proposals for acquiring about 24  acres 82 cents that is the land in question situated in Cherlopalli  village of Owk Mandal. Accordingly, the Revenue authorities  surveyed the land and arrived at the actual extent of land involved  to be only 20 Acres 75 cents and the said land is Government  land and therefore proposal for resumption of the land was said to  have been initiated. Respondents herein filed W.P. Nos. 6511 of 1999 and W.P.  No. 6513 of 1999, inter alia, contending that the appellants have  resumed their land without paying ex gratia amounts in terms of  GOMs. No. 1307 dated 23.12.1993.

Learned Single Judge by common judgment and order dated  11.8.1999 in Writ Petition Nos. 6511 & 6513 of 1999 disposed of  the writ petitions directing the respondents herein to make a  detailed representation to the authorities  within four weeks and  the authorities were directed to consider the same and pass   appropriate order within a period of six weeks.  Subsequently,  respondents herein filed Contempt Case No. 493 of 2001 and  Contempt Case No. 1211 of 2001 before the High Court inter alia  alleging that despite court’s order the ex-gratia payment was not  made.  The appellants filed detailed counter affidavits in the said  contempt petitions inter alia indicating that the land in question  was not resumed and out of the alleged land in question i.e. out of  Acre 24.82 cents, soil was stated to have been excavated only in  Acre 2.40 cents and as such they are not entitled to any ex-gratia

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

payment in respect of the entire extent.  

A learned Single judge of the High Court on consideration of  the matter by a common order dated 11.9.2002 in the two  contempt cases held that the department has resumed the land in  question, exonerated the concerned officer and directed payment  of ex-gratia payment in terms of GOMs. No. 1307 dated  23.12.1993 for the entire extent of the land.  Appellant filed LPA  Nos. 184 and 185 of 2002 before the High Court against the order  passed by learned Single Judge.  The other LPA No. 33 of 2003  was filed by the Commissioner of Municipality, Tuni.  The third  parties filed LPA No. 34 of 2003 along with a Misc. Petition seeking  permission of the Court to condone delay in filing of the LPA  against the order.  They also filed another Misc. petition to direct  the Municipality to deliver possession of the shops as per the  terms and conditions of the auction.  These two appeals have been  filed by the functionaries of the State Government against the  combined order of the High Court in the Letters Patent Appeal.

Stand of the appellant in these appeals is as follows: Primarily, it is contented that the learned Single Judge has  no jurisdiction to give any direction in the manner done while  dealing with the contempt petition.  In any event, a learned Single  Judge has no jurisdiction as his order merging to the order of  Division Bench.  Finally it is submitted that the LPA was not  maintainable.   

Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand  submitted that there was clear violation of the order passed in the  writ petitions and there was blatant attempt to deny the legitimate  claim of the respondents herein.  The land was resumed on  18.11.1998 and till now nothing has been paid to the respondent  as compensation.  Reference has been made to several  correspondences between  Municipal Revenue Officer Owk  Mandalam and the Special Deputy Collector, Nandyal to show that  the lands of the respondents were resumed.

The law as to nature of order that can be passed in contempt  proceedings had been elaborately dealt with by this Court in  several cases.  In Union of India & Ors. v. Subedar Devassy PV  [2006(1) SCC 613] it was held as follows: "2. While dealing with an application for contempt,  the court is really concerned with the question  whether the earlier decision which has received its  finality had been complied with or not. It would not  be permissible for a court to examine the  correctness of the earlier decision which had not  been assailed and to take a view different from what  was taken in the earlier decision. A similar view was  taken in K.G. Derasari v. Union of India  [(2001)10SCC 496]. The court exercising contempt  jurisdiction is primarily concerned with the question  of contumacious conduct of the party who is alleged  to have committed default in complying with the  directions in the judgment or order. If there was no  ambiguity or indefiniteness in the order, it is for the  party concerned to approach the higher court if  according to him the same is not legally tenable.  Such a question has necessarily to be agitated  before the higher court. The court exercising  contempt jurisdiction cannot take upon itself the  power to decide the original proceedings in a  manner not dealt with by the court passing the  judgment or order. Though strong reliance was  placed by learned counsel for the appellants on a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

three-Judge Bench decision in Niaz Mohd. v. State  of Haryana [(1994)6SCC 332], we find that the same  has no application to the facts of the present case.  In that case the question arose about the  impossibility to obey the order. If that was the stand  of the appellants, the least it could have done was  to assail correctness of the judgment before the  higher court."            The above position was earlier highlighted in Prithawi Nath  Ram v. State of Jharkhand [(2004) 7 SCC 261]. It appears that there is also dispute about the area, so in the  contempt petition no direction could have been given in the  manner done.  The Division Bench has held that the LPA is not  maintainable.  In view of what has been stated in Midnapore  Peoples’ Coop. Bank Ltd. & Ors. v. Chunilal Nanda and Others  [2006(5) SCC 399], the LPA was clearly maintainable.   

In Lalith Mathur v. L. Maheswara Rao [2000(10) SCC 285] it  was inter alia held as follows.   "3. The above will show that the High Court has  directed the State Government to absorb the  respondent against a suitable post either in a  government department or in any public sector  undertaking. This order, in our opinion, is wholly  without jurisdiction and could not have been made  in proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act or  under Article 215 of the Constitution."

Reliance was placed on two Division Bench Judgments  holding that contempt petition was not maintainable before  Learned Single Judge as his order had merged with the Division  Bench order.  As regards Lalith Mathur’s case (supra), the High  Court distinguished the judgment on the ground that there was  no elaborate discussion in the judgment and therefore no reason  is discernible. To say the least, the alleged distinguishing feature  as pointed out by the High Court not to follow the judgment  cannot be said to be graceful.  It is clearly violative of the  judicial  discipline.  It has been stated that payments have been made to  some persons and no departure could be made in the present  case.  Actually there is no definite material as to whether the  land was resumed or it was an excavated land.  

It appears from record that three counter affidavits have been  filed and one of the basic issues was whether the land was  resumed or excavated land.  There is no definite material in this  regard brought by the respondents on record.  Three counter  affidavits filed by the respondents clearly indicate their definite  stand.  Neither learned Single Judge nor the Division Bench  addressed the basic issues and on the other hand came to abrupt  conclusions.  Therefore, the orders passed by learned Single Judge  and the Division Bench deserve to be set aside, which we direct.   The authorities shall however consider the matter in detail and  record findings keeping in view the GO, the factual position and  evidence led before it. The appeals are accordingly disposed of  without any order as to costs.