LegalFirms.in
LegalFirms.in Judgments · legalfirms.in/judgments/tata-mohan-rao-vs-s-venkateswarlu-and-others-etc-20250509/ · Printed 07 Nov 2026
Civil · Reportable judgment

Tata Mohan Rao vs S. Venkateswarlu and Others Etc.

Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
9 May 2025
Case No.
Civil Appeal No(s). 6591-6592 of 2025
Result
Partly allowed
Bench
Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai, Augustine George Masih
Citation
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1375 : 2025 INSC 678
Acts & Sections
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
Supreme Court Reports [2025] 5 S.C.R. 1375 : 2025 INSC 678
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.
Headnote

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 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.

Keywords: Demolition · Eviction · Home dwellers · House · Patta · Land · Occupants · Contempt · Disobedience · Rule of law · Livelihood · Humanitarian consideration · Regularise · Article 215

As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Niti Richhariya, Hony. Associate Editor (Verified by: Abhinav Mukerji, Sr. Adv.). Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.

Full Judgment Text

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 Ca
Full text available to subscribers
Subscribe to access complete judgment text, daily digests, and AI-powered legal research tools. For informational and research purposes only.
View Subscription Plans →
Annual plans from ₹1,599 + GST.

This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.

All SC judgments →