TATA MOHAN RAOversusS. VENKATESWARLU AND OTHERS ETC.

                 [2025] 5 S.C.R. 1375 : 2025 INSC 678

                          Tata Mohan Rao
                                 v.
                  S. Venkateswarlu and Others Etc.
                  (Civil Appeal No(s). 6591-6592 of 2025)
                                 09 May 2025
           [B.R. Gavai,* and Augustine George Masih, JJ.]


                           Issue for Consideration
       The Court was seized of a matter concerning the contemptuous
       conduct of a Tehsildar who forcibly evicted home dwellers and
       defied court orders. Court appreciated the factual scenario in light
       of principle of rule of law.

                                  Headnotes†
       Contempt of Court – Respondents sought regularisation
       of their houses via representation to revenue authorities –
       Not considered – Writ petitions filed against revenue
       authorities’ eviction attempt without considering Respondents’
       representation – Direction to Appellant (the then Tehsildar) by
       High Court to decide on representation within 2 months and
       maintain status quo in the interim – Tehsildar allegedly defied
       the said court order; demolished certain structures claiming
       them to be illegally erected overnight – High Court passed
       restraining order against Tehsildar – Tehsildar still defied
       the court order and evicted several families with the help of
       80 police personnel; also mercilessly beat up women and
       children – Aggrieved occupants filed two contempt petitions –
       Single judge found Tehsildar in contempt; sentenced him for
       two months and fined with INR 2,000 – Intra Court appeal
       dismissed – Hence the special leave petition.

       Every person/authority regardless of rank is bound by court
       orders:
       Held: No one, howsoever high in rank is above the law –
       Disobedience of court orders hits rule of law on which democratic



* Author
1376                                                      [2025] 5 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


    societies are founded and thrive – Appellant’s conduct was
    completely inhumane and devoid of humanitarian considerations
    despite their being a court order in place, hence the conviction
    was affirmed.

    Majesty of law lies not in punishing, but in forgiving;
    Court ordered reduction in rank – A novel punishment
    other than what is provided under Contempt of Court
    Act, 1971:
    Held: Though Appellant’s callous conduct does not warrant
    leniency, but keeping in view his imprisonment’s potential impact
    on his children’s education and family’s overall well-being, it is
    just if imprisonment is modified – Because if Appellant undergoes
    imprisonment as imposed, he will be dismissed from service as
    per service rules – Hence, Appellant is demoted by a rank below
    i.e., to the rank of Tehsildar and must pay a fine of INR 1,00,000
    under the NTR Housing Scheme, Government of Andhra Pradesh
    within four weeks and file a proof thereof.

                              List of Acts

    Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

                           List of Keywords

    Demolition; Eviction; Home dwellers; House; Patta; Land;
    Occupants; Contempt; Disobedience; Rule of law; Livelihood;
    Humanitarian consideration; Regularise; Article 215.

                          Case Arising From

    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No(s). 6591-6592
    of 2025

    From the Judgment and Order dated 19.02.2025 of the High Court
    of Andhra Pradesh at Amravati in CA No. 4 and 5 of 2015

                       Appearances for Parties

    Advs. for the Appellant:
    Devashish Bharuka, Sr. Adv., Avnish Dave, Prakhar Sharma,
    Ms. Anu Gupta.
[2025] 5 S.C.R.                                                     1377

          Tata Mohan Rao v. S. Venkateswarlu and Others Etc.


                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                               Judgment

     B.R. Gavai, J.

1.   Leave granted.
2.   The present appeals challenge the common final judgment dated
     19th 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 27th March 2015
     rendered by the learned Single Judge of the erstwhile High Court
     of Judicature at Hyderabad for the 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.
     3.3 The High Court, vide order dated 13 th 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
1378                                                       [2025] 5 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


         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.
    3.6 At the hearing on 11th 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 assigned with the duty of protecting
        the government land, he was merely discharging his duties.
    3.7 The High Court in its order dated 11th 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 Court i.e.,
        orders dated 13th September 2013 and 11th December 2013, the
        appellant, on the night of 12th 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.
    3.10 The learned Single Judge of the High Court, vide common
         judgment dated 27th March 2015 held that the appellant was
[2025] 5 S.C.R.                                                      1379

          Tata Mohan Rao v. S. Venkateswarlu and Others Etc.


           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 11 th 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 impugned common
          final judgment dated 19th February 2025 passed by the Division
          Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench in the impugned
          common judgment reiterates that despite the orders passed by
          the High Court on 13th September 2013 as well as the clear
          warning issued on 11th 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 filed by the
     appellant. Vide order dated 21st 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.
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
1380                                                         [2025] 5 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


     and his entire family would be rendered homeless. He further submits
     that the appellant’s two children, currently studying in 11th and 12th
     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 dated 11th 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 judgment dated
    27th March 2015 noted that apart from violating a specific court order
    dated 11th December 2013, 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.
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
[2025] 5 S.C.R.                                                            1381

             Tata Mohan Rao v. S. Venkateswarlu and Others Etc.


     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 Deputy
    Collector in the year 31st October 2023.
20. We, therefore, partly allow the present appeals in the following terms:
     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 considered only from 31st 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.

     Result of the case: Appeals partly allowed.




     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Niti Richhariya, Hony. Associate Editor
                                 (Verified by: Abhinav Mukerji, Sr. Adv.)