Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2025 INSC 678
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. OF 2025
(Arising Out of SLP(C) Nos. 10056-10057 OF 2025)
TATA MOHAN RAO …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
S. VENKATESWARLU AND OTHERS ETC.
…RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
B.R. GAVAI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeals challenge the common final
th
judgment dated 19 February 2025 passed by the learned
Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at
Amaravati (hereinafter referred to as, “High Court”) in
Contempt Appeal Nos. 4 and 5 of 2015 whereby the learned
Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the
contempt appeals, affirming the common judgment dated
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
DEEPAK SINGH
Date: 2025.05.14
17:04:47 IST
Reason:
th
27 March 2015 rendered by the learned Single Judge of the
erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the
1
State of Telangana and State of Andhra Pradesh in Contempt
Case No.2233 of 2013 and Contempt Case No.128 of 2014
convicting the appellant under the Contempt of Courts Act,
1971 and sentencing him to undergo two months of simple
imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.2,000/-.
3. The facts, in brief , giving rise to the present appeals are
as under:
3.1 Several citizens, including the respondents in these
appeals claimed to be in possession of the land situated in
D.No.600/1 of Adavi Takkellapadu village near Summer Peta,
Guntur Mandal (hereinafter referred to as, “subject land”)
wherein they had constructed their houses. These citizens
had filed representations before the revenue authorities
seeking grant of house site pattas to regularise their
construction.
3.2 Since the said representations were not considered, the
respondents approached the High Court by way of a writ
petition being W.P. No.23641 of 2013 contending that the
revenue authorities were attempting to evict them from the
subject land without considering their representation.
2
th
3.3 The High Court, vide order dated 13 September 2013
directed the Tehsildar to consider the representation of the
said respondents and to communicate a decision within a
period of two months. The High Court further directed that
until a decision vis-à-vis the representations is taken, none of
the authorities would disturb the possession of the
respondents residing on the subject land.
3.4 Subsequently, another set of respondents under similar
circumstances approached the High Court via writ petition
being W.P. No.35958 of 2013 alleging that the revenue
authorities were attempting to evict them from the subject
land without considering their representation.
3.5 In the said petition it was also alleged that the present
appellant, who was then working as a Tehsildar had removed
certain structures from the subject land despite an earlier
order passed by the High Court.
th
3.6 At the hearing on 11 December 2013 in
W.P. No.35958 of 2013, the appellant contended that
unauthorised structures had been erected overnight by
certain individuals and being a government servant and
3
assigned with the duty of protecting the government land, he
was merely discharging his duties.
th
3.7 The High Court in its order dated 11 December 2013
did not accept the contention of the appellant wherein it
specifically recorded that such conduct on part of a public
servant does not auger well in a democratic society governed
by the rule of law. It observed that respondent no.3 therein
(appellant herein) could not have taken law into his own
hands by forcibly removing structures from the subject land.
The High Court, therefore, specifically restrained the
appellant from acting in such a manner.
3.8 It appears that despite the aforesaid orders of the High
th th
Court i.e., orders dated 13 September 2013 and 11
th
December 2013, the appellant, on the night of 12 December
2013 accompanied by a police force of 80 personnel threw
the respondents occupying the subject land on the road,
removed their belongings from their homes after allegedly
beating the women and children mercilessly.
3.9 Aggrieved thereby, two contempt petitions came to be
filed before the High Court being Contempt Case No.2233 of
2013 and Contempt Case No.128 of 2014.
4
3.10 The learned Single Judge of the High Court, vide
th
common judgment dated 27 March 2015 held that the
appellant was guilty of deliberately and wilfully disobeying
the orders passed by the Court. The High Court observed
that despite a specific warning issued to the appellant on
th
11 December 2013, the appellant indulged in demolishing
huts and evicting the occupants. The High Court further
found that the conduct of the appellant was intolerable and
consequently, refused to take a lenient view. Therefore, while
convicting the appellant under the Contempt of Courts Act,
1971, the High Court sentenced him to suffer simple
imprisonment for two months and imposed a fine of
Rs.2,000/-.
3.11 Aggrieved thereby, the appellant preferred intra-court
appeals being Contempt Appeal Nos. 4 and 5 of 2015 before
the High Court which were heard and dismissed vide
th
impugned common final judgment dated 19 February 2025
passed by the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division
Bench in the impugned common judgment reiterates that
th
despite the orders passed by the High Court on 13
th
September 2013 as well as the clear warning issued on 11
5
December 2013, the appellant repeated the misconduct.
Therefore, the order of the learned Single Judge deprecating
the actions of the appellant and directing that the appellant
should not be entitled to any mercy was confirmed by the
learned Division Bench of the High Court.
4. Being aggrieved thereby, a special leave petition was
st
filed by the appellant. Vide order dated 21 April 2025,
taking a lenient view, notice was issued by this Court and in
the meantime, the impugned order was stayed.
5. We have heard Shri Devashish Bharuka, learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the appellant. In spite of being duly
served no one has entered appearance on behalf of the
respondents.
6. Shri Bharuka, learned Senior Counsel submits that
during those days, the situation in the border areas arising
from the bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana was
precarious. Therefore, the appellant made an effort in a bona-
fide manner to safeguard the government land. He further
submits that the appellant had only evicted the persons who
had constructed the houses overnight.
6
7. Shri Bharuka further submits that if the appellant is
imprisoned for a period of 48 hours, then under the relevant
service rules, he would be liable to be dismissed from service.
He submits that the appellant and his entire family would be
rendered homeless. He further submits that the appellant’s
th th
two children, currently studying in 11 and 12 standard,
would not be in a position to continue their education and
that their careers would also be adversely affected.
8. We are of the view that the appellant ought to have
considered the consequences before demolishing the
structures of the home dwellers and throwing them on the
road along with their belongings and that too despite of the
specific warnings given to him by the High Court in its order
th
dated 11 December 2013.
9. The actions of the appellant were inhumane. If the
appellant expects this Court to take a humanitarian
approach, such conduct was not expected from him.
10. The learned Single Judge of the High Court in the
th
judgment dated 27 March 2015 noted that apart from
th
violating a specific court order dated 11 December 2013,
7
there was a total lack of humanitarian consideration in the
appellant’s action.
11. We could have taken a serious view of the matter.
However, we are reminded of a well-established principle that
the majesty of law lies not in punishing, but in forgiving.
12. While we are of the considered view that the appellant
does not merit any leniency on account of his adamant and
callous conduct, we find that his children and family should
not suffer as a consequence of his actions.
13. If the appellant undergoes the original sentence of two
months, under the relevant service rules, he would be
immediately dismissed from his service thereby depriving his
children and family of their livelihood.
14. In that view of the matter, we are inclined to confirm the
conviction of the appellant, however, we are inclined to take a
lenient view with respect to the sentence to be imposed on
the appellant.
15. We hasten to add that though we are taking a lenient
view, it is necessary for this Court to send a clear message
that no one, howsoever high they may be, they are not above
the law.
8
16. When a Constitutional Court or for that matter, any
court issues any direction, every person or authority
regardless of rank, is duty bound to respect and comply with
that order. Disobedience of the orders passed by the court
attacks the very foundation of the rule of law on which the
edifice of a democracy is based.
17. In that view of the matter, we find that the ends of
justice would be subserved if the conviction of the appellant
is affirmed, however, the sentence of imprisonment imposed
on him by the High Court is modified.
18. We find that in order to send across the right message,
the conviction under the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 be
confirmed, however, insofar as the sentence is concerned, the
appellant shall suffer a reduction of one level in rank in the
hierarchy of his service and shall also be liable to pay a
heavy fine.
19. We are informed that the appellant was promoted as a
st
Deputy Collector in the year 31 October 2023.
20. We, therefore, partly allow the present appeals in the
following terms:
9
i. The conviction of the appellant under the Contempt
of Courts Act, 1971 is confirmed;
ii. Insofar as the sentence is concerned, we direct the
State of Andhra Pradesh to revert the appellant to
the post of Tehsildar. His seniority in the cadre of
Tehsildar for further promotional avenues shall be
st
considered only from 31 October 2023; and
iii. The appellant shall pay a fine quantified at
Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only), which shall
be deposited under the NTR Housing Scheme,
Government of Andhra Pradesh within a period of
four weeks from today. The proof of payment shall
be submitted to the Registry of this Court.
21. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
..............................J.
(B.R. GAVAI)
............................................J.
(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)
NEW DELHI;
MAY 09, 2025.
10
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2025 INSC 678
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. OF 2025
(Arising Out of SLP(C) Nos. 10056-10057 OF 2025)
TATA MOHAN RAO …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
S. VENKATESWARLU AND OTHERS ETC.
…RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
B.R. GAVAI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeals challenge the common final
th
judgment dated 19 February 2025 passed by the learned
Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at
Amaravati (hereinafter referred to as, “High Court”) in
Contempt Appeal Nos. 4 and 5 of 2015 whereby the learned
Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the
contempt appeals, affirming the common judgment dated
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
DEEPAK SINGH
Date: 2025.05.14
17:04:47 IST
Reason:
th
27 March 2015 rendered by the learned Single Judge of the
erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the
1
State of Telangana and State of Andhra Pradesh in Contempt
Case No.2233 of 2013 and Contempt Case No.128 of 2014
convicting the appellant under the Contempt of Courts Act,
1971 and sentencing him to undergo two months of simple
imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.2,000/-.
3. The facts, in brief , giving rise to the present appeals are
as under:
3.1 Several citizens, including the respondents in these
appeals claimed to be in possession of the land situated in
D.No.600/1 of Adavi Takkellapadu village near Summer Peta,
Guntur Mandal (hereinafter referred to as, “subject land”)
wherein they had constructed their houses. These citizens
had filed representations before the revenue authorities
seeking grant of house site pattas to regularise their
construction.
3.2 Since the said representations were not considered, the
respondents approached the High Court by way of a writ
petition being W.P. No.23641 of 2013 contending that the
revenue authorities were attempting to evict them from the
subject land without considering their representation.
2
th
3.3 The High Court, vide order dated 13 September 2013
directed the Tehsildar to consider the representation of the
said respondents and to communicate a decision within a
period of two months. The High Court further directed that
until a decision vis-à-vis the representations is taken, none of
the authorities would disturb the possession of the
respondents residing on the subject land.
3.4 Subsequently, another set of respondents under similar
circumstances approached the High Court via writ petition
being W.P. No.35958 of 2013 alleging that the revenue
authorities were attempting to evict them from the subject
land without considering their representation.
3.5 In the said petition it was also alleged that the present
appellant, who was then working as a Tehsildar had removed
certain structures from the subject land despite an earlier
order passed by the High Court.
th
3.6 At the hearing on 11 December 2013 in
W.P. No.35958 of 2013, the appellant contended that
unauthorised structures had been erected overnight by
certain individuals and being a government servant and
3
assigned with the duty of protecting the government land, he
was merely discharging his duties.
th
3.7 The High Court in its order dated 11 December 2013
did not accept the contention of the appellant wherein it
specifically recorded that such conduct on part of a public
servant does not auger well in a democratic society governed
by the rule of law. It observed that respondent no.3 therein
(appellant herein) could not have taken law into his own
hands by forcibly removing structures from the subject land.
The High Court, therefore, specifically restrained the
appellant from acting in such a manner.
3.8 It appears that despite the aforesaid orders of the High
th th
Court i.e., orders dated 13 September 2013 and 11
th
December 2013, the appellant, on the night of 12 December
2013 accompanied by a police force of 80 personnel threw
the respondents occupying the subject land on the road,
removed their belongings from their homes after allegedly
beating the women and children mercilessly.
3.9 Aggrieved thereby, two contempt petitions came to be
filed before the High Court being Contempt Case No.2233 of
2013 and Contempt Case No.128 of 2014.
4
3.10 The learned Single Judge of the High Court, vide
th
common judgment dated 27 March 2015 held that the
appellant was guilty of deliberately and wilfully disobeying
the orders passed by the Court. The High Court observed
that despite a specific warning issued to the appellant on
th
11 December 2013, the appellant indulged in demolishing
huts and evicting the occupants. The High Court further
found that the conduct of the appellant was intolerable and
consequently, refused to take a lenient view. Therefore, while
convicting the appellant under the Contempt of Courts Act,
1971, the High Court sentenced him to suffer simple
imprisonment for two months and imposed a fine of
Rs.2,000/-.
3.11 Aggrieved thereby, the appellant preferred intra-court
appeals being Contempt Appeal Nos. 4 and 5 of 2015 before
the High Court which were heard and dismissed vide
th
impugned common final judgment dated 19 February 2025
passed by the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division
Bench in the impugned common judgment reiterates that
th
despite the orders passed by the High Court on 13
th
September 2013 as well as the clear warning issued on 11
5
December 2013, the appellant repeated the misconduct.
Therefore, the order of the learned Single Judge deprecating
the actions of the appellant and directing that the appellant
should not be entitled to any mercy was confirmed by the
learned Division Bench of the High Court.
4. Being aggrieved thereby, a special leave petition was
st
filed by the appellant. Vide order dated 21 April 2025,
taking a lenient view, notice was issued by this Court and in
the meantime, the impugned order was stayed.
5. We have heard Shri Devashish Bharuka, learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the appellant. In spite of being duly
served no one has entered appearance on behalf of the
respondents.
6. Shri Bharuka, learned Senior Counsel submits that
during those days, the situation in the border areas arising
from the bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana was
precarious. Therefore, the appellant made an effort in a bona-
fide manner to safeguard the government land. He further
submits that the appellant had only evicted the persons who
had constructed the houses overnight.
6
7. Shri Bharuka further submits that if the appellant is
imprisoned for a period of 48 hours, then under the relevant
service rules, he would be liable to be dismissed from service.
He submits that the appellant and his entire family would be
rendered homeless. He further submits that the appellant’s
th th
two children, currently studying in 11 and 12 standard,
would not be in a position to continue their education and
that their careers would also be adversely affected.
8. We are of the view that the appellant ought to have
considered the consequences before demolishing the
structures of the home dwellers and throwing them on the
road along with their belongings and that too despite of the
specific warnings given to him by the High Court in its order
th
dated 11 December 2013.
9. The actions of the appellant were inhumane. If the
appellant expects this Court to take a humanitarian
approach, such conduct was not expected from him.
10. The learned Single Judge of the High Court in the
th
judgment dated 27 March 2015 noted that apart from
th
violating a specific court order dated 11 December 2013,
7
there was a total lack of humanitarian consideration in the
appellant’s action.
11. We could have taken a serious view of the matter.
However, we are reminded of a well-established principle that
the majesty of law lies not in punishing, but in forgiving.
12. While we are of the considered view that the appellant
does not merit any leniency on account of his adamant and
callous conduct, we find that his children and family should
not suffer as a consequence of his actions.
13. If the appellant undergoes the original sentence of two
months, under the relevant service rules, he would be
immediately dismissed from his service thereby depriving his
children and family of their livelihood.
14. In that view of the matter, we are inclined to confirm the
conviction of the appellant, however, we are inclined to take a
lenient view with respect to the sentence to be imposed on
the appellant.
15. We hasten to add that though we are taking a lenient
view, it is necessary for this Court to send a clear message
that no one, howsoever high they may be, they are not above
the law.
8
16. When a Constitutional Court or for that matter, any
court issues any direction, every person or authority
regardless of rank, is duty bound to respect and comply with
that order. Disobedience of the orders passed by the court
attacks the very foundation of the rule of law on which the
edifice of a democracy is based.
17. In that view of the matter, we find that the ends of
justice would be subserved if the conviction of the appellant
is affirmed, however, the sentence of imprisonment imposed
on him by the High Court is modified.
18. We find that in order to send across the right message,
the conviction under the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 be
confirmed, however, insofar as the sentence is concerned, the
appellant shall suffer a reduction of one level in rank in the
hierarchy of his service and shall also be liable to pay a
heavy fine.
19. We are informed that the appellant was promoted as a
st
Deputy Collector in the year 31 October 2023.
20. We, therefore, partly allow the present appeals in the
following terms:
9
i. The conviction of the appellant under the Contempt
of Courts Act, 1971 is confirmed;
ii. Insofar as the sentence is concerned, we direct the
State of Andhra Pradesh to revert the appellant to
the post of Tehsildar. His seniority in the cadre of
Tehsildar for further promotional avenues shall be
st
considered only from 31 October 2023; and
iii. The appellant shall pay a fine quantified at
Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only), which shall
be deposited under the NTR Housing Scheme,
Government of Andhra Pradesh within a period of
four weeks from today. The proof of payment shall
be submitted to the Registry of this Court.
21. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
..............................J.
(B.R. GAVAI)
............................................J.
(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)
NEW DELHI;
MAY 09, 2025.
10