STATE OF A P Vs. MANDALUPU RAMAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Court in exercise of suo motu powers by Order dated 23.9.2003 framed five points for consideration and directed the contemnor to show-cause whether the acts and omissions committed by him as noticed by the Court amounts to Criminal Contempt or not as envisaged in Section"2(c)(II) of the Contempt of Courts Act. If so, why he should not be punished under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India. The points framed are as follows:

(2.) Having received notice in contempt proceedings the contemnor filed his counter on 14th September, 2003. The undisputed fact is that between 28th March, 1972 to llth May, 1972, the contemnor along with the pattedars of land alienated an extent of Ac. 69 - 31 guntas of land situated in various Survey numbers in Warangal Town both under registered sale deeds as well as agreement of sales. As per the agreement entered into by him with the Central Excise Officers Co'-operative Housing Society, Hanumakonda on 28.3.1972, the betterment charges for obtaining the lay out has to be paid by the contemnor. After obtaining lay out from the Director of Town and Country Planning on 1.12.1975 in LP No.6/75 another agreement was entered into between the contemnor and the society where under Clauses 3 and 7 of the agreement dated 28..3.1972 were deleted and while the contemnor agreed to pay the betterment charges up to Rs.1.50/- per Sq.Yard. The society agreed to bear the remaining amount payable towards the betterment charges. Under this agreement, the contemnor was also authorized to get clearance from the Municipality for construction of houses by paying the betterment charges.

(3.) After paying the betterment charges, the society seemed to have not paid the amounts to the contemnor. In those circumstances he got a legal notice issued in July, 1982 demanding a sum of Rs.2 lakhs towards the amount spent by him for payment of betterment charges over and above his commitment. Since the said amount was not paid, a third agreement was entered into between the contemnor and the society on 3.12.1984. The basis for coining to that understanding may be that some official who was in know of tilings might have informed the contemnor that the Director of Town and Country Planning while approving the layout L.P. No.6 of 75 left more open space than the required one under the lay out rules that were in force then.