LexTATA MOHAN RAO versus S. VENKATESWARLU AND OTHERS ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[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
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.