THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM C.C.No. 196 of 2008 Dated: 09-10-2009 Between:- Seerla Satyanarayana and others. ..Petitioners. And The Govt., of A.P., rep., by its Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM C.C.No. 196 of 2008 Oral Order: This contempt case is filed by the petitioner Nos. 3,4 and 5 in W.P.No. 31099 of 1997 alleging willful and contumacious transgression of the order of this Court dated 25-11-1997 in the writ petition, whereby and whereunder the respondents therein, who are the respondents herein, were injuncted from demolishing the houses specified in the order within the limits of Grampanchayat Yellareddy, without initiating any appropriate legal process either under the Land Acquisition Act, the Land Encroachment Act or any other relevant provision of law after calling for objections. This Court however directed that in case it is found that the writ petitioners had raised constructions without necessary sanction from the local authority, they would not be entitled to compensation to the superstructures. In an incoherent contempt petition, the petitioners allege in paragraph No.3 of the affidavit that (all) the respondents have proposed demolition of structures without notice or following the due process of law. In paragraph No.5 of the writ petition, they plead that the respondent Nos. 3 to 7, at the instance of the 2nd respondent had participated in the demolition of the houses on 03-02-2008 and thus disobeyed the orders of this Court dated 25-11-1997. The respondent Nos. 5 and 6 have filed counter affidavit to the contempt petition. To the extent relevant and material the pleadings in opposition assert that after the disposal of the writ petition, the Mandal Revenue Officer has convened a meeting on 17-12-2002 in the Mandal Revenue Office, Yellareddy with the writ petitioners and village elders with regard to the co- operation of the villagers in respect of widening of the road leading from Hyderabad-Medak-Bodhan passing through the Yellareddy town; and the writ petitioners and other villagers, who attended the meeting, requested for widening of the road only to an extent of 50 feet. It is further asserted that on 23-06-2007 the Panchayat Secretary issued a notice to the encroachers to which the writ petitioners submitted a reply on 09-07-2007 disputing the encroachment. These notices and replies were forwarded to the Mandal Revenue Officer for passing final orders and the Mandal Revenue Officer on 02-01-2008 passed final orders for removal of the encroachments. There is a clear, categoric and unequivocal denial of the allegation that the demolitions were without following the due process of law. In paragraph No.6 of the counter, the respondents assert that there was no demolition and some of the residents had themselves removed the buildings voluntarily as per the Grampanchayat resolution. This assertion is reiterated in paragraph No.8 of the counter viz., that the writ petitioners had voluntarily removed the encroachments, by themselves. On behalf of the petitioners a reply affidavit is filed on 16-02-2009. While disputing the assertions in the counter affidavit that there was a meeting convened in the office of the Mandal Revenue Officer on 17-12- 2002; that the petitioners had attended the said meeting on the said date or were in receipt of notices regarding the meeting; it is pleaded that the petitioners got issued a notice apprehending demolition of the structures by the respondents. The averments in the counter affidavit of the respondents that the petitioners had themselves demolished the buildings has not been denied. Even if there be a dispute as to whether the respondents had demolished the constructions, it is the burden of the petitioners to establish that the respondent Nos. 3 to 7 had indulged in the demolition of the petitioners houses at the instance of the 2nd respondent and in violation of the judgment in the writ petition. This burden has not been discharged by the petitioners except by reiterating the averments in the contempt petition and in the reply affidavit. Affidavits constitute pleadings and not proof. There is no proof of demolition by the respondents. The contempt proceedings are essentially quasi-criminal proceedings that potentially impact the liberties of the respondents. In the absence of proof or evidence in substantiation of the petitioners’ complaint of willful and deliberate violation of the orders of this Court in the writ petition, no case is made out for proceeding with the contempt case. The contempt case is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Dated: 09-10-2009