IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH (20th) DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN Present: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Contempt Case No.257 of 2010 Between: Mohammed Mukkaram Qureshi & another …Applicants And: The Principal Secretary (Revenue) Government of A.P., Secretariat, Hyderabad & 2 & others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Contempt Case No.257 of 2010 JUDGMENT: This contempt case is filed under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act for punishing the 3rd respondent-Vijay Bhaskar, Tahsildar, Bahadura Mandal, Hyderabad, for violating the orders of this Court dated 28.07.2008 passed in CMA MP No.1505 of 2008 in CMA No.709 of 2008. 2. Heard the learned counsel for applicants and the learned Government Pleader for Arbitration. The 3rd respondent filed counter- affidavit and the applicants filed a reply thereto. 3. The applicants herein filed suit against the respondents for permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with the applicants’ possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property i.e., 750 sq. yards in Sy.Nos.29 and 32/2, situated in Ward No.19, Block No.4, Meer Sagar village of Bahadurpura Revenue Mandal. The applicants filed I.A.No.4553 of 2007 for temporary injunction. The respondents filed a counter opposing the said petition. By order dated 03.04.2008 the learned III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad dismissed the said application, holding that there is neither prima-facie case nor balance of convenience in favour of the applicants. Aggrieved by the same, the applicants herein filed CMA No.709 of 2008. They also filed CMA MP No.1505 of 2008 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC for temporary injunction pending disposal of the appeal. This Court by order dated 28.07.2008 directed that ‘Status-quo obtaining as on today be maintained, until further orders’. The CMA is stated to be pending. 4. The present application is filed by the applicants alleging that on 17.02.2010 at about 10 a.m., the 3rd respondent along with staff came upon the plaint schedule property and demolished a portion of the existing compound wall and fixed the sign board the words ‘This land belongs to Government. Trespassers will be prosecuted. By order Tahsildar, Bahadurpura’. The applicants allege that in spite of their bringing to the notice of the 3rd respondent about the orders passed by this Court directing maintenance of status-quo, 3rd respondent went on demolishing a portion to the existing compound wall and putting up of the above board and the said conduct on the part of 3rd respondent amounts to violation of the orders of this Court. The 3rd respondent filed a counter denying that they violated the orders of this Court in any manner and further contending that the applicants claimed to have purchased the land in Sy.Nos.29 and 32/2, measuring 750 sq. yards under agreement of sale dated 19.11.2007 from Mrs. Shaheda Begum. It is further contended that according to the town survey land record (TSLR), the said Sy.Nos.29 and 32 correlates to T.S.No.1, Block-C, Ward No.253, which is noted as ‘GVM Road’ (Government vested with Municipal) and recorded as ‘poramboke road’. It is further contended that as per the revenue records, the land belongs to the Government. It is further contended that one Mr. Srinath Agarwal, filed W.P.No.24541 of 2004 claiming to be in possession of the said land and obtained orders of status quo in WP MP No.32147 of 2004 on 02.02.2005. It is further contended that the applicants are neither owners nor the persons in possession of the land in dispute and they have no right to raise any compound wall over the Government land. The 3rd respondent further contends that on 15.02.2010 Mr. Srinath Agarwal filed a petition before him stating that some construction was going on in Sy.No.28 and TS No.9 in spite of status quo orders granted in WP MP No.32147 of 2004 and after receiving the said petition, 3rd respondent along with his staff inspected the spot on 16.02.2010 and surveyed the land with reference to the revenue records and found that compound wall was constructed in Sy.No.28/P. In that counter, 3rd respondent further stated that on 27.02.2010 he again went to the spot along with the Deputy Tahsildar and other officials and tried to remove the encroachment and in the meanwhile about 30 people belonging to the applicants group came to the spot and obstructed the work of removal of encroachment and one of them showed the order of status quo passed by this Court in Sy.Nos.29 and 32/2. Thus, according to the respondents, the applicants have been claiming rights over the land situated in Sy.No.29 and 32/2, whereas the compound wall is found constructed over the Government land situated in Sy.No.28/P in respect of which, one Mr. Srinadh Agarwal filed writ petition. Thus, according to the respondents, the land claimed by the applicants situated in Sy.No.29 and 32/2 is distinct and different from the land situated in Sy.No.28/P, over which the compound wall was found to be under construction and even then, the applicants and their men have caused obstruction for removal of the said compound wall over the land in Sy.No.28/P, which is in fact claimed by one Mr. Srinadh Agarwal. The respondents further contends that the applicants themselves violated the orders of status quo granted by this Court in WP MP No.32147 of 2004 on 02.02.2005 by constructing compound wall over the land situated in Sy.No.28/P and under those circumstances, the 3rd respondent had to put up board to the effect that ‘the land belongs to the Government’, the 3rd respondent, therefore seeks to justify his conduct in putting up the said board on the ground that he only acted on the basis of the report made by Mr. Srinadh Agarwal complaining that the applicants have violated the orders of this Court directing maintenance of status quo in WP MP No.32417 of 2004, constructed compound wall and in order to cover up their own misconduct of violation of the orders of this Court, the present contempt case is filed. In the counter, 3rd respondent also tendered an unconditional apology in the event the Court comes to the conclusion that they violated the orders passed by this Court. 5. The fact that the board is put up by the 3rd respondent to the effect that ‘the land belongs to the Government’, is not disputed by the respondents. However, according to the respondents, the said board was put up over the land situated in Sy.No.28/P, which as per the revenue records is the Government land and it is not the subject matter of the present suit. In the agreement of sale dated 19.11.2007 under which the applicants claimed to have purchased the land, the survey number is noted as 29 and 32/2. In the plaint schedule also, the survey numbers of the subject land are noted as 29 and 32/2. According to the respondents, the two lands are distinct and separate as per the revenue records. When the applicants are claiming rights in respect of the land in Sy.No.29 and 32/2 and when the said land is subject matter of the suit and also CMA, putting up of a board by 3rd respondent over some other land situated in Sy.No.28/P cannot be construed as amounting to an act in violation of the orders of the status quo passed by this Court. At any rate, the 3rd respondent has put up the board in response to the report made by one Mr. Srinadh Agarwal, who claimed rights over the land in Sy.No.28/P, which is subject matter of W.P.24541 of 2004 complaining that the order of status quo granted in WP MP No.32417 of 2004 was being violated. Therefore, the action of the 3rd respondent in putting up the board over the land in Sy.No.28/P does not constitute violation of the order of status quo in respect of the land in Sy.No.29 and 32/2, which is the subject matter of CMA. 6. At any rate, there is nothing on record to show that the 3rd respondent resorted to deliberate and willful disobedience of the orders of the Court pertaining to the land in Sy.No.29 and 32/2. The applicants have not made out any valid or sufficient grounds to proceed further against the 3rd respondent under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. In the circumstances, it is held that the 3rd respondent is not liable for any action under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. 7. In the result, the contempt case is dismissed. No order as to costs. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 20.08.2010 bss