THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Contempt Case No.64 of 2009 (Dated : 22-09-2010) Between: A.V.Adinarayana ReddyR/o 13-3-465, Gowri Talkies Road, Anantapur,Anantapur District …Petitioner A n d The Commissioner, Anantapur Municipal Corporation, Anantapur …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Contempt Case No.64 of 2009 ORDER: This contempt case has been filed by the writ petitioner- A.V.Adinarayana Reddy complaining disobedience of the order dated 10.7.2008 passed in Writ Petition No.14811 of 2008. 2. Background facts leading to filing of this contempt case by A.V.Adinarayana Reddy are:- The writ petitioner is the owner of Ac.0-15 cents of land in Survey No.173/7 of Anantapur Town. He approached the Anantapur Municipal Corporation stating that his site has been affected in formation of road in Central Bank layout in Anantapur Municipal Corporation. The Corporation acting on his representation sent proposal for allotment of an alternative site. The proposal came to be rejected by the Government under Memo dated 31.3.2008. He filed W.P.No.14811 of 2008 seeking mandamus declaring the memo issued by the Government and the action of Anantapur Municipal Corporation in not paying compensation for the site nor providing an alternative site as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. 3. The Writ Petition came to be disposed of, by order dated 10.07.2008, directing the Anantapur Municipal Corporation to take steps for payment of compensation in accordance with the provisions of law since the proposal sent by it for allotment of alternative site has been rejected by the Government. 4. The writ petitioner filed this contempt case against Chiranjevulu, Commissioner, Anantapur Municipal Corporation complaining disobedience of the order dated 10.7.2008. Subsequently, N.Ramachandra Reddy, came to be impleaded as respondent No.2 as per orders in C.A.No.406 of 2009 dated 22.6.2009. One A.Siva Koti Prasad came to be impleaded as respondent No.3 as per the orders in C.A.No.21 of 2010 dated 22.4.2010. For better understanding of the grievance of the writ petitioner, Para 3 of the affidavit filed in support of the contempt case needs to be noted and it is thus:- “ I submit that a copy of the above order was communicated to the Respondent herein. I submit that I have also made a representation dated 19.7.2008 requesting the respondent for payment of compensation. Inspite of receipt of the orders of the Hon’ble Court, the Respondent has not paid the compensation to me as directed by the Hon’ble High Court. I submit that as the Respondent has not complied with the orders of this Hon’ble Court, I got issued a legal notice on 19.11.2008 and after receipt of the said notice, the Respondent has issued a letter asking me to attend the enquiry. I submit that I have attended before the Respondent. I submit that even after more than 30 days time elapsed, the Respondent has not taken any action so far. I submit that the action of the Respondent amounts to willful disobedience of the orders of the Hon’ble High Court”. 5. The contempt case came to be admitted on 13.8.2009 and Form-I notice came to be issued on the even date directing appearance of 2nd respondent before this Court on 14.9.2009. The 2nd respondent-N.Ramachandra Reddy appeared before this Court on 24.7.2009 and filed counter. It is stated in the counter that Anantapur Municipal Corporation had not taken possession of the land owned by the petitioner for formation of 33 feet wide road and no road was laid on the land owned by the petitioner. For better appreciation, I may refer paras 4 and 5 of the counter affidavit, which read as hereunder:- “4. It is respectfully submitted that the Anantapur Municipal Corporation had not taken the possession of 33’ wide road and no road was laid on the petitioner’s site. As such this Respondent has not got any liability to pay the compensation to the petitioner and also to allot alternate site as alleged by the petitioner. 5. In reply to Para 3, it is submitted that, as explained above, this Respondent has not taken possession of the Petitioner’s site in Sy.No.173/7 and not formed any roads as alleged by the petitioner. Hence, the payment of compensation to the petitioner does not arise. This Respondent made efforts to explain the same to the petitioner herein by issuing a Notice dated 29-11-2008 requesting him to be present in the Chamber of Commissioner, Anantapur Municipal Corporation on 05- 12-2008 at 10.30 AM along with relevant records and papers he has got. Subsequently, another notice was served on him again requesting him to be present in the Chamber of Commissioner, Anantapur Municipal Corporation on 03-01-2009 at 9.00 A.M to discuss the issue involved in the Writ Petition. But the petitioner did not attend on both days. As such this Respondent could not explain to the petitioner the factual position. The application of the respondent dated 24-07-2007 to the Secretary to Government of Andhra Pradesh, Municipal Administration and Urban Development, Government of Andhra Pradesh is the evidence that the Corporation has not taken the land of the petitioner. The petitioner himself made an application to the Government of Andhra Pradesh that his site is falling in 33’ wide road for which he is seeking compensation from the authorities. Earlier this office has forwarded proposals to the Principal Secretary to Government through proper channel vide this office letter No.1211/07/G1 dt.17-09-07.” 6. When the contempt case came up for hearing on 22.4.2010, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner asserted that the Anantapur Municipal Corporation has taken possession of the land owned by the petitioner for formation of road and laid a road and whereas the learned counsel appearing for the respondents contradicted the stand of the petitioner. 7. This Court, after hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, appointed an Advocate Commissioner to make physical inspection of the land owned by the petitioner and verify whether any road exists in the petitioner’s land, by order dated 22.4.2010. 8. Accordingly, the Advocate Commissioner inspected the site and submitted his report on 14.6.2010. 9. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that it is the 3rd respondent who made recommendation to the Government for alternative site, and therefore, it is impermissible for him to take the stand that the land owned by the petitioner has not been taken over by the Anantapur Municipal Corporation for formation of the road. Learned counsel refers the letter dated 25.2.2010 addressed to the Principal Secretary to the Government in support of his contention. He also refers the letter dated 6.11.2009, vide Rc.No.1211/2007-G1 addressed to the petitioner herein accepting the proposal of giving an alternative site to the extent of Ac.0-15 cents on an equivalent value. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the entire proceedings emanated on the stand taken by the petitioner that his land has been affected. But, on physical verification, it is turned out that no part of land of the petitioner has been taken by Anantapur Municipal Corporation for formation of road and in which case, the question of paying either compensation or providing an alternative site does not arise. 12. The core issue involved in this contempt case is Whether any part of the land owned by the petitioner has been taken over by the Anantapur Municipal Corporation for formation of 33 feet road? 13. POINT: The report filed by the Commissioner gives a complete answer to this question. The Commissioner appointed by this Court inspected the site in the presence of the petitioner and his counsel. It is the petitioner, who identified the land owned by him. The Commissioner marked the land owned by the petitioner as `ABCD’ in the rough sketch. As on this day, the land claimed by the petitioner is a vacant land and no constructions exist thereon. No traces of formation of road has been noticed by the Commissioner in the land owned by the petitioner. For better appreciation, I may refer para 6 of the report submitted by the Commissioner and it is thus:- “6. I further humbly submit that in my physical verification the ABCD schedule land is being used by the residents as Road and the land also flat and clear and no bushes or trees are in existence in the schedule land. EFJI Road is connected to ABCD schedule land and within the ABCD schedule land in Eastern side there is a old katchcha drainage is in existence appearing like a drainage in the margin of a road. ABCD land length is measured as 131’-0’’ Feet and width as 50’-0’’ Feet. In the both sides of ABCD land little small grass is appeared and the remaining portion is not having grass. After seeing the katchcha drainage and little grass on the sides of the schedule land, it appears that the ABCD schedule land being used by the residents of locality regularly. The green grass in the midst of the katchcha drainage canal appears that the drainage margin canal is existing from long time. Adjacent land on the Northern side structure is demolished and appears, its demolished waste material is placed there and there in the margins of the ABCD land. I have taken all photographs pertaining to the ABCD land and EFJI road connecting to the ABCD land and enclosed herewith for this Hon’ble Court’s perusal. I have completed the physical verification of ABCD land by 12.00 Noon and obtained the signatures of all concerned on the proceeding sheet.” 14. I have gone through the photographs filed along with the Commissioner’s report and the rough sketch prepared by the Commissioner. It is evident from the rough sketch that `ABCD’ land owned by the petitioner is adjacent to Anantapur Journalists Colony. `ABCD’ land is to the east of Anantapur Journalists Colony. To the west of the Anatapur Journalists Colony, there is 80 feet road. There is no road passing through ABCD land. All through, the petitioner contended that the land owned by him has been taken over by Anantapur Municipal Corporation for formation of 33 feet road. The rough sketch prepared by the Commissioner with the assistance of Mandal Surveyor, Town Planning Officer and Town Planning section staff does not indicate of any road being laid on the `ABCD’ site. `ABCD’ site is well intact and the petitioner is at liberty to continue to be in occupation of the same. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that residents nearby `ABCD’ site have shown `ABCD’ site as a road and obtained permission from the concerned authorities for construction of the building. 15. No material has been placed before me to show that the residents of the locality secured permission showing ABCD land as a road. Even if such a permission is obtained, it does not bind the petitioner to continue to be in possession of the property. The assertion made by the petitioner before the Anantapur Municipal Corporation that his land has been taken over for formation of road proved to be incorrect by the location sketch prepared by the Advocate Commissioner with the assistance of Mandal Surveyor and Town Planning Officer. When the Corporation has not laid any road on the land owned by the petitioner, question of paying compensation does not arise. After going through the Commissioner’s report and plans annexed thereto, I find that there is every justification in the stand taken by the respondent that no part of the land owned by the petitioner has been taken over for formation of the road nor any road is laid on the land as on this day. 16. Therefore, the contempt case is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed. _____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt.22-09-2010 RAR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Contempt Case No.64 of 2009 DATED : 22-09-2010