THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Contempt Case No.1873 of 2010 Dated 08th August, 2011 Between: B.Ramesh Kumar …Petitioner And Sri Natrajan Gulzar, District Collector, Hyderabad District, Nampally, Hyderabad and another …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri M.A.K.Mukheed Counsel for respondents: GP for Revenue The Court made the following: ORDER: This contempt case is filed alleging wilful disobedience of order, dated 13.12.2010 in W.P.No.32169 of 2010. This Court by the above-mentioned order restrained the respondents from interfering with the petitioner’s possession of house bearing No.18-7-739/33/B/1 of Kandikal Village, Bandlaguda Mandal, Hyderabad District. The petitioner alleged in this contempt case that the respondents have wilfully and deliberately demolished the house bearing the above-mentioned number despite the said interim order passed by this Court. In the separate counter affidavits filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2, they have maintained that the site for the school building is in Survey No.262/P correlated to T.S.No.97, Block-D, Ward No.272 of Kandikal Village and that they have not interfered with the petitioner’s possession of the property in Survey No.263. They have alleged that in the guise of enjoying his land, the petitioner is trying to encroach into the adjacent government land. Respondent No.1 has filed letter, dated 10.01.2011, of the Deputy Director, Survey and Land Records, Hyderabad District, addressed to the Tahsildar, Bandlaguda Mandal, Hyderabad District, wherein he has stated that as per the town survey records, T.S.No.97, Block-D, Ward No.272 of Kandikal Village is correlated to Survey No.242 part and Survey No.263 is correlated to T.S.No.30, Block-H, Ward No.272 of Kandikal Village. He has also enclosed location sketch, in which the land allotted to the school is shown under Survey No.242/P. While the petitioner has produced the material to show that the property was assessed at house No.18-7-739/33/B/1 of Kandikal Village, in the recent inspection made, the said house was found not in existence. In ordinary course, a legal presumption would have arisen on the existence of a house, which was assessed to municipal tax. But, as the petitioner is unable to place any direct evidence in support of his plea that the respondents have demolished the said structure and having regard to the stand taken by the respondents that the site which was handed over for school building is situated in Survey No.242/P and not in Survey No.263, this Court is unable to find the respondents guilty of violation of the order of this Court. The contempt proceedings, it is trite, are quasi criminal in nature. Unless a case beyond all reasonable doubt is made out against the respondents, it is not possible to hold them guilty. In this view of the matter, this Court is not in a position to accept the plea of the petitioners in order to punish the respondents for the alleged violation of the order of this Court. The contempt case is, therefore, dismissed for lack of proper evidence on the part of the petitioner rather than on this Court being convinced about the innocence of the respondents. The petitioner is however permitted to approach the competent civil Court for claiming damages by adducing proof of existence of the house and its demolition by the respondents. As a sequel to dismissal of the contempt case, Application Nos.1258 of 2010 and 319 of 2011 are disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 08th August, 2011 VGB