T. Ramadas vs Collector and District Magistrate, Hyd.

P.S. Mishra, C.J.—These two petitions - one invoking Article 215 and the oilier Article 226 of the Constitution of India - are primarily addressed to the alleged demolition of a compound wall, which, according to the petitioner, was constructed after proper sanction and regular litigation in this behalf before this Court and an order in W.P.M.PNo.33868 of] 996, dated 23-12-1996. According to the petitioner, property bearing H.No.6-2-805/5, situate in Thummala Basthi, Khairatabad Hyderabad, belongs to him. He has purchased the said property under a registered deed of sale, dated 20-9-1993. He made application for permission to carry out reconstruction of the premises, which existed upon the same from before and after obtaining necessary permission from the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, started the work. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Golconda, however, arrived all of a sudden and look away all construction materials and implements. Aggrieved by the above and his refusal to return the construction materials and implements, the petitioner has filed Writ Petition No.27415 of 1996. This Court has granted interim direction on 23-12-1996 restraining the respondents from interfering with the possession and construction work It appears, in the meanwhile, the Mandal got reconstituted and out of Golconda Mandal Khairatabad Mandal has been created. The new Mandal Revenue Officer of Khairatabad, it is alleged, on 18-2-1997 arrived and stopped construction at the spot and not only stopped construction but started dismantling a part of the structure with men and material styling themselves to be the demolition squad. Petitioner brought to the notice of the Mandal Revenue Officer the order of the Court in W.P.M.P.N0.33868 of 1996. Petitioner upon the above has filed Contempt Case No.238 of 1997 alleging wilful violation of the order of the Court in W.P.M.P.No.33868 of 1996. The Court in the said contempt petition once again directed for stay of all further proceedings including any steps of dismantling the structures. Petitioner has alleged, "I informed the first respondent herein about the orders passed by this Hon''ble Court in Contempt Case and a copy of the order was alsa served on the Respondent No.1 on 20-2-1997 Having acknowledged the receipt of the copy of the order passed by this Hon''ble Court on 19-2-1997, the Respondent No. 1 is understood to have instructed the Respondent No.2 to carry-out the demolition," It is further alleged in the petition:

"The Respondent No.2 who neither served any orders nor any proceedings on me and with the help of nearly 25 policemen came to the construction site with a bulldozer said to have been supplied by Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Circle No. V, bearing No.710, by bringing in policemen 25 in number in AP 9B 837 and in a Government Jeep No. ATY 4666 at 4.00 p.m. and razed down the entire structure raised by me in 15 minutes by removing the pillars on three sides. I had to watch the whole affair as a mute spectator and on being asked, a Police Inspector by name one Mr. Raju said to be attached to Saifabad Police Station, silenced me with abusive command. I had to keep quiet and I could not resist in view of the huge police force present at the site. However, I could inform my Advocate, who rushed to the spot by which time the structure was pulled down in a very high handed manner."

In the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Writ Petition No. 3727 of 1997, petitioner has alleged as above.

The version of the third respondent, however, is available in the counter affidavit, to which a reply also has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, which, when summarised, reveal as follows :

The land in question is classified as a Government Nala in the town survey record. Thus, the petitioner is a land grabber within the meaning of the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act.

Khairatabad Mandal was formed on 27-12-1996 as per the decision of the Government which was communicated through the proceedings of the District Collector, dated 27-12-1996. He (the deponent) was posted as Mandal Revenue Officer and took charge on 27-12-1996. He has, therefore, been not aware of the earlier proceedings filed by the petitioner and grant of interim stay not to interfere with his possession in W.P.M.P.No.33868 of l996 in Writ Petition No.27415 of l996, dated 23-12-1996.

He (the deponent) received information from reliable source that the petitioner was constructing a pucca house on the above land on 18-2-1997. He visited the site and found that the petitioner was constructing the house on the Government vacant land. He advised the petitioner not to proceed with the construction. When, however, the petitioner refused to hear any oral orders, he partly demolished it with the help of subordinates to prevent the petitioner from making any further constructions.

At the time of demolition on 18-2-1997, the petitioner had not shown any copies of the order passed by this Court. The impugned action was taken by the deponent in discharge of his official duties in good faith as a Mandal Revenue Officer.

The deponent received the order in the Contempt Application No.198 of 1997, dated 19-2-1997, by way of telegram and the order copy of the same he received on 25-2-1997. Thereafter, he has not taken any action to demolish the house of the petitioner.

Wisdom of raising a proceeding under Article2266 of the Constitution of India and any order of stay of any action purportedly taken by the competent authority/in accordance with law can, no doubt, be questioned and if respondents so advised, can always legitimately seek recall of the order of stay or dismissal of the writ petition on grounds, inter alia, that the writ petition is not maintainable or that the order of stay at the instance of the petitioner, who has no title to the property, is not warranted. It can always be some endeavour of persons in authority to demonstrate before the Court that when the title of the petitioner is disputed, the proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not necessary efficacious and/or effective and proper remedy is to seek the declaration of title and order of restraint in accordance with the provisions of law in this behalf.

The order of the Court, however, has remained unchallenged and once it is served upon the respondents, they are bound to obey the same. It will be indeed somewhat incongruous for a successor in office of a person who earlier was responsible for the same acts as are allegedly committed by the respondents, to say that the successor in office is not bound by the knowledge he possessed or service of the order of the Court upon the predecessor is not a service of the order on the successor in office.

Viewed in totality, the order of the Court in W.P.M.P.No.33868 of 1996, whether valid or not, since it was in vogue and in force, was binding upon the respondents. Respondents could not violate the said order even if they were fully convinced that the land upon which the petitioner has been making constructions belonged to the Government of the State and that for all purposes the petitioner is a land grabber as defined under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act. Counter affidavit is of candid admission of the act which is violative of the order of the Court which was in force on the day the violence to the order is allegedly committed by the respondents.

The question to be decided, however, in the instant proceeding is, whether the violation is wilful and if it is wilful violation, the respondents cannot escape the charge of committing contempt of the Court. Respondents have maintained that the petitioner did not bring to their notice the order of the Court on the day the Mandal Revenue Officer, Khairatabad, visited the site. It is difficult to believe the statement. A person who has obtained the order of the Court and when it is not disputed that he was present at the site and that he objected to the demolition, it is difficult to believe he did not tell the concerned people that this Court in W.RM.P.No.33868 of 1996 had issued order of restraint which was binding upon them. No person is expected to allow demolition of a house property including compound wall by some men who are bound by the order of the Court, that he would not bring to the notice of such persons the order of the Court and tell them that they must desist from proceeding any further with the work of demolition.

It is difficult thus for the above reason to hold that the act to demolish the compound wall after the order of stay in W.P.M.P.N0.33868 of 1996 is not a wilful act of disobedience. There are some allegations showing that even after the order passed in the Contempt Case, when the petitioner informed the first respondent to issue necessary instructions, he rather acted in defiance of the order of the Court and instructed the Revenue Divisional Officer and the Mandal Revenue Officer to continue with the work of demolition. It is possible, on the facts of the case, to assume that petitioner, in order to save his property, contacted all concerned people including the Collector of the District (first respondent) and apprised him of all the relevant facts. It is always expected, however, of a senior Revenue Officer who holds the office of the Collector, to know the limitations under which he has to function and the importance of the rule of law that even if the order of the Court, in his opinion, is grossly violative of law, and/or is not a just and proper order which could have been issued on the facts of the case, to obey the order and seek, by making appropriate petition, modification or recall of the order of the Court. If what is alleged against the/ Collector of the District and the Revenue-Divisional Officer is true, it is indeed a matter more serious than an act of an over-zealous officer, who, inspite of the order of the Court, had visited the site and having been satisfied that the construction was being done upon a land which belonged to the State, started the work of demolition.

The Contempt of Courts Act has defined ''civil contempt'' as the wilful disobedience of the order of the Court. Disobedience thus which has occurred for want of knowledge of the order of the Court or otherwise without there being a clear intention exhibited to violate the order of the Court, is not an offence which the Court would punish under the Contempt of Courts Act. The will to violate the order has to be demonstrated in the conduct of the alleged contemner. The Collector and the Revenue Divisional Officer, who, it is alleged, directed for the demolition inspite of being informed about the order of the Court, if the allegation is accepted, are guilty of more serious contempt of Court and thus all the three respondents in such circumstances would be guilty of wilful disobedience of the order of the Court.

This Court has repeatedly pointed out that if any order of the Court is passed, which respondents desire to be recalled and do not want the implementation of the same, respondents should take necessary steps for the recall of the order. They cannot sit upon the validity or otherwise of the order or desirability of the order of the Court. We have reasons to think that repeated reminders in this behalf to the officers of the Government of the State, have not yet been fully realised and respondents have not yet come out of the executive arrogance which many a times has brooked disaster and serious consequences upon the administration.

Coming to the facts of the case, we have good reasons to think that excuses advanced by the respondents are not acceptable and going by the facts as above, their conduct is fully covered by the definition of the ''civil contempt'' under the Contempt of Courts Act. We, however, do not propose to take serious notice of the allegations against the first respondent and second respondent i.e., the Collector of the District and the Revenue Divisional Officer for the simple reason that when there is oath against oath and facts are disputed, unless enquiry is conducted and one or the other version is disproved, the Court should extend the benefit to the person accused or alleged to have committed the offending act. In the case of the third respondent, however, it is not possible to extend the above consideration as he has admitted to have demolished the compound wall to teach a lesson to the petitioner so that he desisted from making constructions upon a land which, according to him, belonged to the Government of the State. No Officer of the Government goes to do any act to teach lesson to anyone who does, according to him, a wrong, but to remove the wrong and restore the right. Third respondent, according to his own case, however, had no justification, without there being any proceeding in this behalf, to demolish the compound wall particularly when there was an order of stay still in force and which order he, in all circumstances, was required to obey. He, however, has received his first assignment ever as the Mandal Revenue Officer and has thus come up to discharge such responsibility for the first time when he has acted in the above high-handed manner which has brought him before the law to face the consequences of wilful disobedience of the order of the Court. He has also tendered unqualified apology.

It is by now a settled principle of law that jurisdiction of the Court under Article 215 of the Constitution of India is quite pervasive and this jurisdiction is exercised not merely to punish the contemner but to effectuate the order of the Court and to ensure that there is no further violation of the order of the Court. How to effectuate the order when the third respondent has admittedly demolished the compound wall.

The conduct of the second respondent, which is disclosed in the writ petition, of demolishing a construction without there being any proceeding and of seizing the building materials and the implements, obviously has to be repaired by such direction which would restore the possession of the petitioner upon the property subject to the right of the respondents to remove encroachment upon the Government land, if any, in accordance with law. On a combined reading of the facts and after taking stock of the situation which has obtained in the proceedings before us, we are inclined to hold against the respondents in so far as their proceeding against the constructions by the petitioner without following the prescribed procedure of law, yet we do not propose to grant to the petitioner any relief by way of compensation for the demolition of the building and/or removal of the materials and the implements, except for the return of the materials and the implements to the petitioner for the simple reason that in case it is found that title to the land vests with the Government, all that the petitioner has done is illegal by dint of his occupation upon the land being illegal. Advisedly for any relief, therefore, against the respondents for the alleged demolition by the second respondent and his men, must be sought for in a civil proceeding and compensation, if any, for such demolition, in our view, be left to be decided by the Civil Court in accordance with law. So far the materials and implements of construction are concerned, we do not have any record, except the allegation as above which is undisputed to doubt the veracity of the statement of the petitioner. It would be proper on the facts of the case, therefore, to direct the respondents to return all the materials and implements which they have taken from the custody of the petitioner. So far the third respondent is concerned, since we have found he has wilfully disobeyed the order of the Court, we would have chosen to punish him for the wilful disobedience of the order of the Court but for the reason that he has newly been assigned the position of responsibility as the Mandal Revenue Officer and he has tendered unqualified apology. We record for the said reason our admonition to the conduct of the third respondent, but leave the right to seek compensation for the alleged demolition in accordance with law in a properly instituted suit by the petitioner. It is stated by the learned Government Pleader that all materials and implements seized from the custody of the petitioner shall be returned within one week. Petitioner, if so advised, can raise his claim of compensation in a properly constituted civil suit. Respondents, if so advised, can move the Special Court, Land Grabbing, for decision in accordance with law on the question - whether as alleged, the land belongs to the Government; otherwise, respondents are restrained from interfering with the possession of the petitioner, which order, however, shall operate until such order interim or final is passed in the proceeding before the Land Grabbing Court.

The Contempt Case and the Writ Petition are ordered accordingly.