Holding

The Supreme Court held that the officials did not commit contempt as the status‑quo order had expired long before the construction, and consequently enhanced the compensation to Rs 15,000 per square yard.

Summary

The predecessor‑in‑interest of the respondents owned ten acres of land in Hyderabad and had leased it to Hyderabad Industries Ltd. The Mandal Revenue Officer issued a notice under Section 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905, to vacate the land. The notice was challenged and the High Court quashed it, directing a three‑month status‑quo. The government did not file a suit but proceeded to construct ministers' quarters on the land. The respondents filed a contempt petition alleging disobedience of the status‑quo order. The High Court held the officials in contempt and ordered compensation of Rs 5,000 per square yard, subject to the outcome of a land‑grabbing suit. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the status‑quo order had expired in December 1995 and the contempt petition was filed four years later; therefore, no contempt occurred. The Court set aside the contempt finding and enhanced the compensation to Rs 15,000 per square yard, leaving other orders untouched.

Issues considered

Whether the government officials committed contempt of court by constructing on the land after the status‑quo order had lapsed.
Whether a subsisting order of restraint existed that could attract contempt proceedings.
Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to assess and fix compensation in contempt proceedings.
Whether the compensation awarded should be increased in view of the valuation by the State.

Legislation cited

Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982s. 8

Subjects

Land encroachmentContempt of courtStatus quoCompensationLand grabbingLeaseGovernment authorityAndhra Pradesh Land Encroachment ActAndhra Pradesh Land Grabbing Act

Judgment

[2008] 6 S.C.R. 632

A BANWAR LAL & ORS.
v.
G. KALAVATHI (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 2200-2201 of 2001)
APRIL 16, 2008
B
[B.N. AGRAWAL, ALTAMAS KABIR & G.S. SINGHVI, JJ.]

A.P Land Encroachment Act, 1905 - s. 6 - Owner and
possessor of land leasing out the land to a Company - Notice
c under s. 6 by Revenue Officer to vacate land - Challenge to -
Notices quashed with leave to the Government to establish its
title,.,_ Writ appeal - Direction by Division Bench of High Court
to maintain status quo for three months - However, Authorities
carrying out constructions over the said land - Contempt
D petition - Upheld by Division Bench of High Court and
contemnors directed to pay compensation @ of Rs. 5, 0001-
per sq. yard to petitioners- Justification of- Held: Construction -+
work was not carried on during the period the order of status
quo was in force- Contempt petition was filed almost four years
after the order of status quo ceased to operate - Therefore,
E findings of courts below regarding contempt of court alleged
to have been committed by contemnors set aside - 19 acres
of land has been utilised for construction of ministers' quarters,
direction to restore the land to the owners would cause great
hardship to Authorities -Thus, in view of the assessment made
F by State Authorities, compensation awarded, enhanced to
Rs. 15, 0001- per sq. yard.
The predecessor-in-interest of the respondents in
Civil Appeal Nos. 2200-2201 of 2001 became absolute
owner and possessor of 10 acres of land in Survey 1291
G 3611. The original owner-VS had acquired the said
property by a patta issued by the Authorities in the year
1930. The property is bounded on the North by a
Government land; on the South by Road No. 13; on the
East by land in Survey No. 129175 belonging to Mis
H 632
BANWAR LAL & ORS. v. G. KALAVATHI (DEAD) BY 633
LRS. & ORS.

Hyderabad Industries Limited and in the West by the land A
belonging to K in Survey No. 129/36. Respondent No.1
leased out the said land to Mis Hyderabad Industries
Limited by a registered lease deed.
The Mandal Revenue Officer issued a notice to the
respondent No.1 u/s 6 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, B
1905 to vacate the land within 3 days from the date of
receipt of the notice. The respondents then filed writ
petition challenging the notice. The Single Judge of High
Court quashed the writ petition with leave to the
Government to file a suit to get its title established. The C
Mandal Revenue Officer filed Writ Appeal. The Division
Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ appeal
directing the status quo to be maintained for a period of
three months from the date of the order to enable the
Government to take appropriate steps in the matter. D
+ However, the Government did not take any steps to
establish its title over the said land. Appellant-Authorities
made constructions over the land in question.
Respondent No.1 then filed a contempt petition on the
ground of disobedience of the orders passed by the High E
Court. On the other hand, the State initiated proceedings
against the respondent No.1 u/s 8 of the A.P. Land
Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 alleging that the land in
question under the occupation of the respondent No.1
was a government land. The Division Bench of High Court F
held that it was proved that the Mandal Revenue Officer
and also the other superior authorities disobeyed the
orders passed by the High Court and as such committed
contempt of court. It observed that no purpose would be
served to the respondent if direction is given to handover G
the vacant possession of the property. The court directed
the appellant-authorities to pay compensation to the
respondent at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per sq. yard as valued
by the State in the application filed u/s.8 of the A.P. Land
Grabbing (Prohibition) Act against the predecessor-in-
H
634 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 6 S.C.R.

A interest of the respondent, in case the land grabbing case
was dismissed in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of
the respondent. Hence the present appeals.
Appellants contended that both the Single Judge and
also the Division Bench of the High Court failed to take
8 notice of the fact that the land on which the construction
work was carried on was not the land which the
respondent No.1 had purportedly acquired from P and
that the same had been leased out to M/s. Hyderabad
Industries Limited; that since the said land was under the
C occupation of M/s. Hyderabad Industries Limited, the
question of making constructions on the said land did
not arise; that having regard to the report of the
Commissioner appointed by the High Court in the
contempt proceedings, it would be evident that the land
D of the respondent No.1 could not be correctly identified
in relation to the map of the site plan annexed to the title
deeds and also the lease deed executed by her; that in
any event, the land under the occupation of M/s.
Hyderabad Industries· Limited, measuring 13 acres and
E 35 guntas was bounded on all sides by a pucca
compound wall; that the land leased by the respondent
No.1 to the company would be within the compound wall
of the company, and, accordingly, the question of making
any construction thereupon, which forms the basis of the
F contempt petition, did not arise; that the High Court
exceeded its jurisdiction in assessing compensation to
be paid in respect of the lands belonging to the
respondent No.1; and that there was no subsisting order
of restraint or any direction given by High Court, which if
G violated, would have attracted the provisions relating to
contempt of Court.
Respondents contended that there was no ground
to interfere with the decision arrived at by High Court in
the contempt proceedings; that the basic premise of the
H case made out on behalf of the appellants was fallacious
BANWAR LAL & ORS. v. G. KALAVATHI (DEAD) BY 635
LRS. & ORS.

on account of mistaken identity of the pl9t belonging to· A
the appellants in Civil Appeal No.2202 of 2001; that the
said fact was clear from the counter affidavit filed by the
Mandal Revenue Officer in Writ Petition filed by the
respondent no 1; that the affidavit of the Mandal RevenL:Je
Officer in juxtaposition with the report of the Survey B
Commissioner appointed by the High Court, would reveal
that the land which was leased by respondent no 1 to the
company was outside the boundary wall which had been
erected by the company around the lands acquired by it
through 3 separate sale deeds; that the High Court rightly c
found that the construction work which was being
undertaken for construction of Ministers' quarters, was
also being carried on in the 10 acres of land which had
been leased by respondent no 1 to M/s Hyderabad
Industries Limited; that there was a genuine dispute D
regarding title and the writ petitioner could not have been
evicted from the land except in due process of law; that
once the notice u/s 6 was quashed by the High Court the
petitioner continued to enjoy absolute rights as the owner
of the said property; that having failed in their attempts to
evict the writ petitioner from the land, the authorities filed E
a complaint against the writ petitioner; that the High Court
erroneously directed that compensation @ of Rs.5,000/-
per square yard be paid to the petitioner, in the event the
land grabbing case was dismissed; that the High Court
had erred in restricting payment of compensation till after F
the decision in the land grabbing case; and that the
appellants had themselves assessed the value of the
lands to be more than Rs.20,000/- per square yard, hence
the compensation amount decided by High Court was not
commensurate with the value assessed by appellants G
themselves, therefore, sho.uld be increased.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD 1.1 The reasoning of the Division Bench of the
High Court in the impugned judgment in holding that the H
636 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 6 S.C.R.

appellants had committed contempt of the said order
11,
dated 14.9.1995 cannot be accepted. 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
B 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 on
c 19.11.1999 when the respondent no 1 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
0
after the order of status quo ceased to operate, it is difficult
to appreciate as to how the Division Bench of the High
Court could have found the appellants committed
contempt of Court. The findings of the High Court in
respect of the same must be held to be contrary to the
E materials on record. Therefore, the findings of the Courts
below regarding contempt of Court alleged to have been
committed by the appellants are set aside. It is held that
the appellants are not guilty of contempt of Court as
alleged. (Paras 26 and 31) [650-8, C, D, E, F; 652-A, B]
F
1.2 From the facts it is clear that Mis 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
G 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 Hyderal18d Industries Limited were the lands forming
the subject matter of the three sale deeds. In other words,
H
BANWAR LAL & ORS. v. G. KALAVATHI (DEAD) BY 637
LRS. & ORS .
.....
the land leased to the company by Smt. G. Kalavathi was A
part of the 19 acres of land which was the subject matter
of the notice issue by the Mandal Revenue Officer on
20.6.1986 under Section 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Land
Encroachment Act, 1905, which was quashed in Writ
Petition and had been utilised for constructing the B
ministers' quarters. (Para 28) [650-Gi H; 651-A, B, CJ
1.3 It is 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 Authorities in the event c
a direction was given to them to restore the land to the
respondents. (Para 29) [651-C, D]
1.4 Considering the ground realities and the
assessment .made by the State authorities themselves,
D
there appears to be some substance in the respondent's
submissions regarding the compensation. It is directed
that the compensation awarded by the Division Bench in
the judgment under appeal, should be suitably increased.
Thus, the compensation awarded by the Division Bench
oft.he High Court is enhanced from Rs.5,000/- per square E
yard to Rs. 15,000/- per square yard. The other orders and
directions given in the impugned judgment regarding
payment of such compensation is not interfered with.
(Paras 30, 31 and 32) [651-G; 652-A, B, C]
F
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.
2200-2201 of 2001.
From the final Judgment and Order dated 19.01.2001 of
the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Contempt Application No.
1563 of 1999 & Contempt Case No. 1819 of 1999. G
WITH
..,.
Civil Appeal No. 2202 of 2001.
Anoop G. Chaudhary and R.F. Nariman, Manoj Saxena,
H
638 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 6 S.C.R.

A Rajneesh Kumar Singh, Rahul Shukla, T.V. George and A.
Subba Rao for the Appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ALTAMAS KABIR, J. 1. These appeals by way of special
B leave are directed against the judgment and order dated 19th
January, 2001, passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in
Contempt Application No. 1563 of 1999 and Contempt Case
No.1819 of 1999, holding that deliberqte and wilful acts of
disobedience of the orders passed by the High Court, by the
c Mandal Revenue Officer and also by the other superior
authorities had been amply proved and as such they had
committed contempt of Court. The High Court then went on to
observe as follows:-
"Viewed from any angle the respondents clearly disobeyed
D 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
E 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
F 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
G 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
H or any other reasonable amount in lieu of directing the
BANWAR LAL & ORS. v. G. KALAVATHI (DEAD) BY 639
LRS. & ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]

respondents to redeliver possession of the land in question A
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 B
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 C
case and the contempt applications are closed. There
shall be no order as to costs."
2. It is clear from the aforesaid order that instead of
directing demolition of the construction already made and/or D
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 E
(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 F
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 G
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 H
640 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 6 S.C.R.

A 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 ·
B 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
c the impugned order came to be passed, a brief outline of the
facts leading to the passing of the said order is set out
herein below.
6. The predecessor-in-interest of the present respondents,
one Smt. G. Kalavathi, came to be the absolute owner and
D 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
E purchased the same by a registered sale deed dated 29th
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 Chdstian era. From the description of the property
F contained in the order impugned in this appeal, the said property
is bounded on the North by a Nata (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
G No. 129/36.
7. The respondent No.1 herein leased out the said land
measuring ten acres to Mis Hyderabad Industries Limited by a
~
registered lease deed dated 27th June, 1971. The Manda!
Revenufil Officer, Golconda Manda!, issued a notice to the
H
BANWAR LAL & ORS. v. G. KALAVATHI (DEAD) BY 641
LRS. & ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.)

Respondent No.1 on 20th June, 1986 under Section 6 of the A
A.P. Land EncroachmentAct, 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 Mahdal Revenue Officer in issuing the notice was B
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 c
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, D
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 E
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 2Yd November, 1999, together with a registered legal F
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 G
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 H
642 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 6 S.C.R.

A 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
B 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
C 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.

D 10. Appearing in support of the appeal, Mr. Anoop
Chaudhary, Senior Advocate, urged that both the Single Judge
and also the Division Bench of t~e High Court had completely
failed to take notice of the fact that the land on which the
construction work was carried on was not the land which the
E respondent No.1 had purportedly acquired from Papaiah and
that the same had been leased out to M/s. Hyderabad Industries
Limited. Since the said land was under the occupation of M/s.
Hyderabad Industries Limited, the question of making
constructions on the said land did not arise.
11. Mr. Chaudhary then submitted that in the contempt
proceedings, the High Court had appointed a Commission
consisting of high-level officers of the Survey and Land Records
Department, Hyderabad, to conduct a survey of the land in the
presence of the Advocate-Commissioners representing the
respondent No.1, who was the petitioner in the contempt case,
along with his juniors. The Commissioners were directed to visit
the disputed property and to report on the following items:-
(1) They shall ascertain the total extent of land covered
. by the map.
BANWAR LAL & ORS. v. G. KALAVATHI (DEAD) BY 643
LRS. & ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]

(2) They shall measure the total extent of land occupied A
and the extent of land occupied by Birla Guest House
belonging to Mis. Hyderabad Industries Limited.
(3) They shall measure the extent of land that is shown
in the map with brown lines indicating boundaries
and whether any part thereof form part of Birla Guest 8
House.
(4) What is the extent of land that is under the occupation
of the Government and being used for construction
of Minister's quarters. c
12. In the report submitted by the Commissioners, it has
been stated that the reference map furnished by the respondent
No.1 herein to the Advocate Commissioners and passed on by
them to the team of Survey Officers, does not tally with the record
of measurement of Block 'S' in ward No.11 and that having D
regara to the said factor, the Commissioners had chosen to
follow the actual state of things on the ground. After conducting
a survey as directed by the High Court in the presence of the
Advocate Commissioners of the respondent No.1 herein, the
Commissioners observed that the total extent of land covered E
by the map was 31 acres and 20 guntas. It was also pointed out
that the land covered by the green-coloured boundary in the
reference map was identical with reference to Road No.13,
Banjara Hills and the compound walls and it was found that the
area consists of Ministers' quarters constructed by the F
Government and also the land under the occupation of Birla
Guest House which has a separate compound wall. As far as
the land covered by Birla Guest House built by Hyderabad
Industries Limited is concerned, the same measured 13 acres
and 35 guntas and had a pucca compound wall on all the sides. G
It is also stated that on verification of the copies of the title deeds
of M/s. Hyderabad Industries Limited it was found that the
-; company had purchased a total extent of 13 acres and 13 guntas
under three documents, which, in fact, meant that the said
company was in excess possession of land to an extent of 22 H
644 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 6 S. C.R.

A guntas of land, which could not be demarcated exactly because
the position on the ground was different from the boundary shown
in the plan annexed to the title deeds.
On examination of the sale deeds belonging to the
petitioners and the lease deed executed by Smt. G. Kalavathi
B in favour of Mis. Hyderabad Industries Limited and the plan
...
annexed to the said documents, it was observed that the same
were found to be inconsistent and not in conformity with the area
shown in the reference map with brown lines. However, although,
it was not possible to locate exactly the said area on the ground,
c on actual measurement the area in the reference map was found
to consist of 9 acres 32 guntas.
The total extent of land. under the occupation of the
Government and being used entirely for construction of Ministers'
D quarters was found to be measuring 17 acres and 25 guntas
and it was also indicated that it was bounded on all sides by a
pucca wall, except on the north, where in a portion there was a
rubble wall.
Mr. Chaudhary submitted that having regard to the report
E of the Commissioners, it would be evident that the land of the
respondent No.1 could not be correctly identified in relation to
the map of the site plan annexed to her title deeds and also the
lease deed executed by her. In any event, the land under the
occupation of M/s. Hyderabad Industries Limited, measuring
F 13 acres and 35 guntas was bounded on all sides by a pucca
compound wall.
13. According to Mr. Chaudhary, the land leased by the
respondent No.1 to the company would be within the compound
wall of the company, and, accordingly, the question of making
G any construction thereupon, which forms the basis of the
complaint petition, did not arise and both the Single Judge
and the Division ~nch of the High Court erred in holding
'I'
otherwise.

H 14. In addition to the above, Mr. Chaudhary submitted that
BANWAR LAL & ORS. v. G. KALAVATHI (DEAD) BY 645
LRS: & ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]

the High Court in its contempt jurisdiction had adopted the mantle A
ofCollectorwithin the meaning of the LandAcquisitionAct, 1894,
and had thereby exceeded its jurisdiction in assessing
compensation to be paid in respect of the lands belonging to
the respondent No.1. Mr. Chaudhary, submitted that the orders
both of the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High B
Court stood vitiated when it .travelled beyond the scope of its
contempt jurisdiction.
15. Mr. Chaudhary lastly submitted that there was no
subsisting order of restraint or any direction given by the High
Court, which if violated, would have attracted the provisions C
relating to contempt of Court. However, in the absence of such
injunction or direction, the High Court had wrongly exercised its
contempt jurisdiction and had also travelled beyond the same,
which .renders the orders of the High Court vulnerable and liable
to be set aside. D
16. Appearing in support of the appeal preferred by Smt.
G. Kalavathi and opposing those filed by the contemnors, Mr.
R.F. Nariman, learned senior counsel, submitted that the basic
premise of the case made out on behalf of the appellants in E
Civil Appeal Nos.2200-2201 of 2001 was fallacious on account
of mistaken identity of the plot belonging to the appellants in
Civil Appeal No.2202 of 2001. Mr. Nariman submitted that the
said position would, in fact, be very clear from the counter ·
affidavit filed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Golconda, in Writ F
Petition No.11714 of 1986 which had been filed by Smt. G.
Kalavathi and out of which the contempt proceedings had arisen.
The learned counsel pointed out that in paragraph 2 of the
counter-affidavit the Mandal Revenue Officer, Golconda, had
stated that since Survey No.403 covered the entire area G
popularly known as Banjara Hills and Jubilee Hills area had
become a paradise for speculators, the Government had
appointed a Special Gr. Dy. Collector, in 1982, for identification
and demarcation of government and private lands in the Banjara
Hills area. It was also stated that during the survey it had come
H
646 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 6 S.C.R.

A to light that M/s Hyderabad Asbestos Limited, who were the
successors to M/s Hyderabad Industries Limited, had occupied
a portion of Survey No.403 of Shaikpet village and had
constructed a compound wall. It was also stated that the inquiry
conducted by the aforesaid official in respect of the Banjara
B Hills area reveal that the area occupied by M/s M/s Hyderabad
Asbestos Limited, comprises of the following lands:-
1. ·Land purchased by M/s Hyderabad Asbestos
Limited, from Sri Md. Azam in Sy. No.129/75 of
Shaikpet Village vide document No.55/62, dated
c 11.1.1962.
2. Land purchased by M/s Hyderabad Asbestos Limited
from Fazal Nawaz Jung in Jubilee Hills Municipality
Plot No.129/75/01 vide document No.93, dated
D 29.5.1963.
3. Land purchased by M/s Hyderabad Asbestos Limited
from Fazal Nawaz Jung in Jubilee Hills Municipality
Plot No.129/75/01 under as agreement of Sale,
dated 17.9.1963 (outside compound).
E
4. Land occupied by Mis Hyderabad Asbestos Limited
from Smt. G. Kalavathi, W/o Venkataswamy through
a Lease Deed No.2021/72, dated 28.6.1971 in Sy.
No.129/36/1.
F 5. Land occupied by M/s Hyderabad Asbestos Limited
without any authority in Sy. No.403.
17. In relation to the above it was also indicated that the
purchases made in respect of serial no. 1 to 3 indicated above
G were from the original owners of the land, whereas the land
measuring 19 acres and 3 guntas, indicated in items 4 and 5,
which had been occupied by the company, was government land
in Survey No.403 of Shaikpet village which had been occupied
by the said company without any authority in law. It was sought
H to be justified that since there were no certified records nor any
BANWAR LAL & ORS. v. G. KALAVATHI (DEAD) BY 647
LRS. & ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]

revenue records to show the right, title and interest of the A
petitioner in Sub-Division No.129/36/1 in the record of Shaikpet
village, and the same was found to be non-existent under the
provisions oftheA.P. Land EncroachmentAct, 1905, resumption
proceedings were initiated.

18. Mr. Nariman pointed out that as would appear from B
the Report of the Survey Commissioner appointed by the Court
an area measuring 13 acres 13 guntas was found to have been
purchased by M/s Hyderabad Industries Limited from others,
which area had been enclosed by a compound wall on all sides.
However, from the counter affidavit filed by the Mandal Revenue C
· Officer in the writ petition it was evident that apart from the above
land which was within their boundary walls the company was
also in occupation of 10 acres of land which had been leased
to it by Smt. G.Kalavathi by a lease deed dated 28.6.1971 in
Survey No.129/36/1. Another plot of land measuring 9 acres D
· and 3 guntas were also shown to be in the occupation of M/s
Hyderabad Industries Limited without any authority to possess
the same. Mr. Nariman pointed out that the measurements
disclosed would indicate that the area covered by the three sale
deeds in favour of the company measuring about 13 acres and E·
13 guntas had been encircled by a boundary wall. Apart from
the above, a further 19 acres was also under the occupation of
the said company which included the 10 acres which had been
leased by Smt. G. Kalavathi in 1971. Mr. Nariman submitted
that it was this 19 acres which was the subject matter of the F
notice issued by the Manda! Revenue Officer, Golconda, on
20.6.1986 under Section 6 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act,
1905, which had been challenged in Writ Petition No.11714 of
1986 and had been quashed in the said proceeding.
19. Mr. Nariman urged that the said affidavit of the Manda! G
Revenue Officer in juxtaposition with the report of the Survey
Commissioner appointed by the High Court, would at once
reveal that the land which was leased by Smt. G. Kalavathi to
the company was outside the boundary wall which had been
H
648 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 6 S.C.R.

A erected by the company around the lands acquired by it through
3 separate sale deeds. It was urged that the High Court had
rightly found that the construction work which was being
undertaken for construction of Ministers' quarters, was also
being carried on in the 10 acres of land which had been leased
B by Smt. G. Kalavathi to M/s Hyderabad Industries Limited.
20. Mr. Nariman submitted that when the land in question
had been settled with Vankata Swamy by a patta, the said
document contained a condition that Revenue for the said land
would have to be paid @ Rs.5 per acre before construction of
C houses and thereafter at Rs.10 per acre after construction of
houses. According to Mr. Nariman, although the claim of
Papaiah in respect of the title over the land had been rejected
in 1971, the Government did not take any further steps in the
matter and from 1971 Smt. G. Kalavathi remained in open
D possession directly and through Mis Hyderabad Industries
Limited as her lessee. Mr. Nariman pointed out that it is only
after the order was passed under Section 6 of the A.P. Land
Encroachment Act, 1905, that the Government, in accordance
with its own case, took a decision in 1986. In this regard Mr.
E Nariman also pointed out that although Papaiah's claim was
purported to have been rejected by the Government in 1971
there were demand notices in 1974, 1975 and 1976 which had
been complied with by the writ petitioners. Mr. Nariman submitted
that having regard to the aforesaid facts there was a genuine
F dispute regarding title and the writ petitioner could not have
been evicted from the land except in due process of law. Mr.
Nariman also urged that once the notice under Section 6 referred
to above was quashed by the High Court the petitioner continued
to enjoy absolute rights as the owner of the said property. Mr.
G Nariman submitted that having failed in their attempts to evict
the writ petitioner from the land by the aforesaid means, the
authorities filed a complaint against the writ petitioner under
the provisions of theA.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1981.
Mr. Nariman urged that the High Court had quite rightly decided
H the contempt petition, but had erroneously directed that
BANWAR LAL & ORS. v. G. KALAVATHI" (DEAD) BY 649
LRS. & ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
. -<
compensation be paid to the petitioner, in the event the land A
grabbing case was dismissed, at the rate of Rs.5,000/~ per
square yard, when the appellants themselves had admitted in
their affidavit that the value of the lands in question would be
more than Rs.20,000 per square yard at the relevant point of
time. Mr. Nariman also submitted that the High Court had erred B
,._
in restricting payment of compensation till after the decision in
the land grabbing case, since it had found that the same had
been filed only as a counter blast to the contempt petition filed
by the writ petitioner.
21. Mr. Nariman submitted that there was no ground to c
interfere with the findings of the High Court or the decision arrived
1.. at therein in the contempt proceedings, but the compensation
-I
computed was liable to be reconsidered in the light of the
... admission made by the appellants themselves in Civil Appeal
Nos.2200-01 of 2001 . D
....,
22. Since this appeal arises out of orders passed by the
High Court on the contempt petition. filed on behalf of
·respondents in Contempt Application No. 1563 of 1999 and
CC No.1819/1999, it would be in the fitness of things to first of
E
all consider whetherthe High Court was justified in holding that
the appellants had violated the order dated 14.9.1995 passed
by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.742 of 1989 filed by
·. theMandal Revenue Officer, Golconda Mandal, Hyderabad.
23. As has been indicated hereinbefore the respondents F
herein challenged the notice dated 20.6.1986 issued by the
Mandal ~evenue Officer, Golconda Mandal, Hyderabad, under
Section 6 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905 and the
learned single Judge _quashed the same for the reasons
indicated in his judgment and order dated 14.10.1988. G
24. In the Writ Appeal filed by the Mandal Revenue Officer,
. Golconda Mandal, Hyderabad, the Division Bench of the High
Court did not interfere with the judgment and order of the learned
Single Judge upon holding that the learned Single Judge had
rightly allowed the writ petition. However, while dismissing the H
650· SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 6 S.C.R.

A writ appeal the Division Bench directed the status quo to be
maintained for a period of three months from the date of the
order to enable the Go• ·~rnment to take appropriate steps in
~.J(
the matter. ~ ,

25. It is in respect of this order that the contempt petition
B 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
c 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
D 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
E
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
F 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.

G 27. This now brings us to the other limb of the order
impugned in these appeals.
28. 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
H acres and 13 guntas had been purchased by the said company.
.)

'
BANWAR LAL & ORS. v. G. KALAVATHI (DEAD) BY 651
'
LRS. & ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
,..
.... Of the remaining two plots, the said company was also in A
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!:, Jst 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 B
... 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 Manda!, 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 c
and had been utilis ~d for constructing the ministers' quarters.
1

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 D
.... great hardship to the respondents in the event a direction was
given fo them to restore the land to the respondents.
~-

30. In the other appeal, being Civil Appeal No.2202 of 2001,
. ~

filed by Smt. G. Kalavathi, one of the questions raised is whether
E
the High Court was justified in directing payment of
compensation at the rate of Rs.5000 per square yard subject to
the condition that the same be paid after the determination of
the land grabbing case filed by the State against the respondents
under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing
Provisions Act, 1982. It has been urged by Mr. Nariman that the F
-'1 appellants had themselves assessed the value of the lands in
question to be more than Rs.20,000/- per square yard in Ground
'S' of their Special Leave Petition filed in 2001 and hence the
amount decided as compensation by the High Court was not
commensurate with the value assessed by the appellants G
themselves, and should therefore, be increased.
31. Considering the ground realities and the assessment
made by the State authorities themselves, there appears to be
some substance in Mr. Nariman's submissions. We, therefore, H
652 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 6 S.C.R.
r
(
.... '
A allow the appeals in part and set aside the findings of the Courts •
below regarding contempt of Court alleged to have been
comrrriiled by the appellants herein. We hold that the appellants
are not guilty of contempt of Court as has been alleged.

32. We also direct that the compensation awarded by the
B Division Bench in the judgment under appeal, should be suitably
increased in view of the assessment made by the State
authorities themselves. We accordingly, enhance the
compensation awarded by the Division Bench of the High Court
from Rs.5,000/- per square yard to Rs.15,000/- per square yard.
C We make it clear that we are not interfering with the other orders
and directions given in the impugned judgment regarding
payment of such compensation.
33. The appeals are disposed of accordingly. There will
D be no order as to costs.
N.J. Appeals disposed of

..