2025 INSC 678 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

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

judgment dated 19

th 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

27

th March 2015 rendered by the learned Single Judge of the

erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the

2

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

3.3 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 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 11

th 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

4

assigned with the duty of protecting the government land, he

was merely discharging his duties.

3.7 The High Court in its order dated 11

th 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 13

th September 2013 and 11

th

December 2013, the appellant, on the night of 12

th 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.

5

3.10 The learned Single Judge of the High Court, vide

common judgment dated 27

th 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

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 19

th 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 13

th

September 2013 as well as the clear warning issued on 11

th

6

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 21

st 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

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

two children, currently studying in 11

th and 12

th 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 11

th 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 27

th March 2015 noted that a part from

violating a specific court order dated 11

th December 2013,

8

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.

9

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

Deputy Collector in the year 31

st October 2023.

20. We, therefore, partly allow the present appeals in the

following terms:

10

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 31

st 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.