Supreme Court Pulls Up Dy Collector Who Demolished Slum-Dwellers' Huts In Violation Of HC Order

The Supreme Court on Monday (April 21) came down heavily on a Deputy Collector in Andhra Pradesh who, in his capacity as Tahsildar, disobeyed directions of the High Court and forcibly removed slum-dwellers' huts in Guntur district, thereby displacing them.

For context, the petitioner-Tahsildar was found guilty of contempt of Court by the High Court and sentenced to 2 months' simple imprisonment. Challenging the said order, he approached the Supreme Court.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih heard the matter and ordered:

"In ordinary circumstances, we would not have entertained the present SLP inasmuch as the petitioner had the audacity to disobey the directions of the High Court dated 11.12.2013. However, taking a lenient view, we are inclined to issue notice, returnable on...till then, [there shall be] stay of the order."

Orally, the bench indicated that the petitioner would have to do prison-time, pay heavy costs to all the persons who suffered due to his actions, and suffer demotion. 

At the outset of the hearing, Justice Gavai expressed displeasure with what transpired, saying that officers should not think they are above the law. "We will take him into custody right now! Somebody's playing with the dignity of the High Court. How do you justify his conduct?" the judge posed to Senior Counsel Devashish Bharuka (appearing for the petitioner-Tahsildar).

In response, Bharuka conceded that the petitioner's conduct was unpardonable, but prayed for mercy, urging that the Court may take a lenient view. "Mercy on what ground?  Does he feel he is above the High Court?" retorted Justice Gavai. The judge also asked the Tahsildar, who was present in Court, why he did not abide by the specific directions of the High Court (that he shall not disturb the possession of the slum-dwellers).

At this point, Bharuka sought to explain that when the subject action was taken by the Tahsildar, the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana were going through turbulent times. It was submitted that encroachments took place at the site(s) overnight, and it was those structures which were removed. Seeking a lenient view, the senior counsel contended that the petitioner understands that his failure to abide by the High Court's directions was wrong, and informed that he has two minor children.

"He should have thought about them when he dis-housed so many slum-dwellers. Those persons also had children...", Justice Gavai said in response. The judge also enquired as to the petitioner's current designation, to which, Bharuka replied that he is now serving as a Deputy Collector and is on deputation as Director (Protocol) with the state government.

Background

Four persons, claiming to be in possession of certain land in Guntur District, filed representations before the Revenue authorities, for grant of house site pattas for the lands, which were said to be in their occupation. Thereafter, they approached the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, contending that the revenue authorities were seeking to evict them from the plots in their occupation without considering their representations.

By order dated 13.09.2013, the High Court (Single Bench) disposed of the writ petition, directing the Tahsildar to consider the petitioners' application for grant of house site subject to their eligibility and to communicate the decision taken within a period of two months. It was further directed that none of the respondents, including the Tahsildar shall disturb the possession of the petitioners, if they are in possession of the lands.

Another set of people approached the High Court contending that they were in possession of lands in the Guntur district since 2 years and were sought to be removed without considering their representations for grant of house sites. In their case, by order dated 11.12.2013, the High Court (Single Bench) disposed of the petition, observing that the Tahsildar could not take law into his own hands by indulging in forcible removal of the structures. The people represented by the petitioner-union were restrained from raising any structures till their representations for grant of house site pattas were considered and the Tahsildar warned against repeating his acts in future.

Thereafter, the petitioners in both the cases filed contempt petitions, contending that despite the High Court's orders, the Tahsildar forcibly removed their huts on 06.12.2013 and 08.01.2014.

After noting that as many as 88 police personnel were brought to the site on 08.01.2014 at the request of the Tahsildar, the High Court (Single Bench) held that the Tahsildar acted in deliberate, utter disobedience of the Court orders and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for 2 months as well as pay fine of Rs.2000/-.

Aggrieved, the Tahsildar filed contempt appeals. His contention was that he only sought to remove encroachments from the sites, which were erected by third parties overnight. However, the same were dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court, noting that the stance was bereft of details and not very credible. In this backdrop, the Tahsildar moved the Supreme Court.

Case Title: TATA MOHAN RAO Versus S. VENKATESWARLU AND ORS., SLP(C) No. 10056-10057/2025