THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.495 of 2014 Date: 21.01.2014 Between:
Basheeruddin @ Saleem . PETITIONER AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Hyderabad and others . RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: SMT.V. DYUMANI Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following :
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.4 in locking/seizing the petitioner’s property i.e., M/s.Bharath Weigh Bridge situated in Survey No.206 of Jangampally Village, Bhiknoor Mandal, Nizamabad District, as illegal and arbitrary.
The petitioner had been running a weigh bridge. By an order dated 28.12.2013, respondent No.4 has ordered the eviction of the petitioner under Section 6 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905. The said order was questioned in W.P.No.38888 of 2013. This Court, by order dated 31.12.2013, while declining to interfere with the order of respondent No.4 on the ground of availability of alternative remedy, however, suspended the said order observing that the stipulation of three days for eviction of the premises was wholly inadequate, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall file an appeal within two weeks. It was further directed that the suspension order shall continue till such time as an appropriate is passed by the appellate authority on the stay application that may be filed by the petitioner. The petitioner alleged that at around 4.30 p.m., on 31.12.2013 itself the property was seized and locked and that the order of this Court was communicated to respondent No.4 on 04.01.2014 with a request to remove the lock. As respondent No.4 has not acceded to the said request, the petitioner filed this Writ Petition.
This Writ Petition was filed in the Vacation Court and the Vacation Court adjourned the case from 17.01.2014 to 20.01.2014. The case was adjourned on 20.01.2014 to today, at the request of the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Telangana Area).
Today, respondent No.4 is personally present. The learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that respondent No.4 has instructed her subordinates to handover key to the petitioner. To the query of this Court, on non-compliance with the order, respondent No.4 has informed that as the premises was locked on 31.12.2013 itself, legal opinion was sought in the matter of implementation of the order of this Court and that she was awaiting legal opinion.
In my opinion, respondent No.4 acted in a highly unreasonable manner. In the order dated 31.12.2013, this Court has expressed its thorough dissatisfaction on the manner in which the primary authorities (Tahsildar concerned) have been exhibiting undue haste in seeking to give effect to the eviction orders without allowing the aggrieved parties reasonable time to approach the appellate authorities in securing appropriate interim orders. It is apt to reproduce this observation:
“This Court has been constantly noticing that while passing eviction orders, the primary authorities (Tahsildars concerned) have not been granting reasonable time to the aggrieved parties for vacation of the premises and the appellate authorities are not passing orders on the interlocutory applications, filed seeking stay of interim orders. As a result of this lack of rational approach on the part of the primary as well as the appellate authorities, the legal remedies of appeal and revision are rendered otiose.
A fundamental feature of our legal system is right to avail further remedies wherever the extant statutory enactments provided for such remedies. Such a legal right cannot be scuttled by fixing arbitrary time limits for implementation of the orders, which are subject to further legal remedies at the option of the aggrieved parties. Respondent No.1 is therefore directed to issue a circular to the authorities under the Act to provide at least thirty days’ time, which is stipulated as limitation for filing appeals for vacation of the properties covered by the eviction orders. The Circular shall further provide that the appellate authority shall pass an appropriate order on the stay application as expeditiously as possible and in any case not later than three days from the filing of the stay application. Respondent No.1 shall send a copy of the circular to the Registrar (Judicial) for being placed before this Court within one month from the date of receipt of this order.”
In the name of legal opinion, respondent No.4 has kept the premises under lock ignoring the suspension of the eviction order passed by her. The attitude of respondent No.4 thus displays complete lack of respect for the order of this Court. The conduct of respondent No.4 prima facie constitutes contempt. However, having regard to the fact that respondent No.4 has taken corrective steps albeit belatedly by instructing her subordinates to handover key to the petitioner, this Court refrains from initiating contempt proceedings. However, for keeping the premises under lock for nearly three weeks after passing the order by this Court and driving the petitioner to this needless litigation, respondent No.4 shall pay costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to the petitioner from her personal funds.
Subject to the above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of.
As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.554 of 2014 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 21.01.2014
va