IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH, AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.C.No.163 OF 2009 Between: Gangula Bhoomaiah (died) and others …Petitioners/Appellants A n d Pannala Kistaiah (died) and others. … Respondents/Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.C.No.163 OF 2009 ORDER: This contempt case is filed under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act seeking to punish the second respondent herein for the alleged violation of the orders dated 21-07-2008 in ASMP.No.295 of 2008 in A.S.No.32 of 2003 passed by this Court. 2. The respondent filed a counter denying any violation of the orders of this Court. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the records. 4. The petitioners herein are the appellants in A.S.No.32 of 2003, which was preferred against the judgment and decree dated 11-11-2002 in O.S.No.73 of 1997, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Jagitial, whereunder the said suit filed by the respondents herein for declaration of title and for injunction was decreed. The petitioners herein filed ASMP.No.295 of 2008 seeking a direction to the respondents/plaintiffs to maintain status quo during the pendency of the appeal in respect of the land admeasuring 1966 sq.yards in Sy.No.796 of Metpally village of Karimnagar District. The respondents herein filed a counter opposing the said application. After hearing both sides, this Court, by order dated 21-07-2008, dismissed the said application, recording the statement of the respondents that they are not making any alterations in the schedule land or intending to dispose of the same. It was represented by the respondents at the time of hearing the said application that a portion of the schedule land is under process of acquisition by the National Highways Authorities for the purpose of widening the road. Thus, the request made by the petitioners/appellants for maintenance of status quo was not granted and the said application was dismissed, but, however, recording the statement of the respondents that they are not making any alterations in the schedule land or intending to dispose of the same. The appeal is pending. 5. The present contempt case is filed alleging that contrary to the assurance and undertaking given by the second respondent herein through his counter, he had executed a registered sale deed dated 19-12-2008 along with his wife for a portion of 480 sq.yards in Sy.No.794 abutting National Highway No.16. According to the petitioners, a portion of the schedule land, which is subject matter of the appeal, is also covered by the said sale deed and by executing the said document, the second respondent violated the undertaking given before this Court. The second respondent, on the other hand, would contend that most of the schedule land is under acquisition for widening of the National Highway from the existing 66 feet to a width of 200 feet which runs through Sy.No.796 and the plots which are sold in Sy.No.796 is not subject matter of the suit or appeal and they are situate much beyond the schedule land, which is subject matter of the appeal. The second respondent would contend that the said plea was taken by him even in the counter in ASMP.No.295 of 2008 and thereupon this Court recorded the statement of second respondent that he is not making any alterations or intending to dispose of any portion of the schedule land. A copy of the sale deed executed by the second respondent and his wife on 19-12-2008 would show that what was sold thereunder was 480 sq.yards situate in Sy.No.796. As per the plan filed by the second respondent along with his counter, the plot sold by the second respondent is not abutting the disputed site and there is some other land in between. The petitioners, however, allege that they both are abutting. The dispute regarding the identity of the land cannot, however, be gone into in the present proceedings. The respondent filed a letter dated 16-04-2003 written by the Executive Engineer, National Highways division to the Municipal Commissioner of Korutla to the effect that as per the existing guidelines of the Government of India, 100 feet from the centre of National Highway No.16 road is to be left on either side as set back. According to the second respondent, the plot sold is situate much beyond the said 100 feet from the centre of the National Highway road and the sale deed executed by him also shows the same. According to the second respondent, the subject matter of the suit and appeal is in Sy.No.794 and the injunction order in O.S.No.29 of 2008 also related to Sy.No.794 and the same has nothing to do with the plot sold by the second respondent, which is situate in Sy.No.796. Thus, prima facie, the plot sold by the second respondent is shown to be situate beyond 100 feet from the centre of the National Highway, whereas the subject matter of the suit and appeal is within the said distance of 100 feet. The respondents are, therefore, not shown to have in any way violated the undertaking given by them in the counter filed in ASMP.No.295 of 2008 that they would not alienate or alter the subject matter of the appeal. As such, the contempt proceedings initiated against the respondents are not sustainable. 6. In the result, the contempt case is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 17TH September, 2009 Lrkm.