IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH C.C. No.570 of 2011 Between: M/s.Vijay Constructions … Petitioner and D.Peddiraju, Tahsildar, Madhurawada, Visakhapatnam District. … Respondent THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH C.C. No.570 of 2011 ORDER: This contempt case has been filed seeking to punish the respondent for having deliberately violating the orders passed by this Court in W.P. No.153 of 2011 on 12.01.2011. The case of the petitioner is that he filed W.P. No.153 of 2011 seeking for issuance of Writ of Mandamus declaring the high handed action of the respondents therein in trying to dispossess the petitioner from the land in an extent of Acs.2.85 cents in Sy.No.81/3, Ac.0.76 cents in Sy.No.83/1, and Acs.2.22 cents in Sy.No.83/2, totaling in an extent of Acs.5.83 cents situated at Pardeshpalem Gram Panchayat, Chinnagadila Mandal, Madhurawada Taluk, Visakhapatnam District, without following due process of law, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of the constitution of India and contrary to the Article 33(A) of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the petitioner’s land without following due process of law. The case of the petitioner, in the said writ petition, was that he was the owner of the land in question having purchased the same under a registered sale agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney dated 23.02.2004 from one Pothini Jagannadha Rao and others and since then he has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same by paying the tax to the Government. While so, respondent No.4 therein issued a certificate stating that the lands in question are zeroyathi lands. There is a burial ground adjacent to the lands in question. Respondents, with a view to develop the burial ground, constructed a compound wall to the same. The petitioner made a partition in between the compound wall and the lands in question. While things stood thus, respondent No.4, intending to develop the burial ground, on 31.12.2011 came to the lands of the petitioner along with his staff and asked him to vacate the same, stating that the said lands form part of the burial ground. Alleging that the respondents are interfering with possession of the petitioner over the lands in question, the petitioner filed the writ petition. The contention of the Government in the said writ petition was that the petitioner made vague allegation on the respondents that they are interfering with his possession over the lands in question, without following due process of law. If the lands in question are to be required for any public purpose, the respondents are under obligations to follow the due process of law. Having regard to the said fact of the case, this Court on 12.01.2011 disposed of the said writ petition with a direction to the respondents therein not to interfere with the lands in question, without following due process of law. The petitioner filed the present contempt case complaining that the order dated 12.01.2011 passed by this Court in the said writ petition was willfully disobeyed by the respondent, Tahsildar, Madhurawada, who was the 4th respondent in the said writ petition, and sought to punish him under the provisions of the Courts of Contempt Act. It is submitted by the petitioner, in the affidavit filed in support of the contempt case, that as the 4th respondent in the said writ petition was trying to interfere, he send the order copy to all the respondents though RPAD and the respondents received the same on 01.02.2011 by the RDO, and on 02.02.2011 by the Tahsildar. Even after receipt of the order passed by this Court, which were sent by the petitioner to the 4th respondent in the said writ petition, on 07.02.2011, the official respondents in the writ petition interfered with the petitioner’s peaceful possession along with their staff and demolished the compound wall by stating that they have every right to interfere with the petitioner’s land over an extent of Acs.5.83 cents situated at Pardesipalem Gram Panchayat, Chinnagadila Mandal, Madurawada Taluka, Visakhapatnam district and damaged the entire land with the bulldozers and demolished the compound wall of the burial ground. Due to that act, several unsocial elements and also the third parties, who are nothing to do with the lands, are interfering with the possession of the petitioner. Therefore, the action of the respondent herein constitutes willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court and therefore, he is liable for punishment. On behalf of the respondent, counter affidavit has been filed stating that the land covered by Sy.No.84/1 in an extent of Acs.2.46 cents is a Government land registered as “burial ground” in the revenue records. The GVMC has constructed a wall between the burial ground and the petitioner’s lands previously to develop it and to avoid encroachments in the burial ground. The GVMC has constructed the wall across some part of the burial ground and left some part of the burial ground adjacent to the lands of M/s.Vijaya Constructions assuming that the land lie in layout. The petitioner constructed a partition wall and encroached the Government land about Ac.0.40 cents in burial ground covered by Sy.No.84/1, which left over by the GVMC and adjacent to petitioner’s land. It is also submitted that on receipt of information about the encroachment of the Government land viz., burial ground covered by Sy.No.84/1 of Paradesipalem village, Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal, the respondent had deputed his field staff to inspect the land and to stop any encroachment found in the Government land. Accordingly, his staff visited the Sy.No.84/1 of Paradesipalem village on 24.12.2010 and found some encroachments in the Government land. The land measuring in an extent of Acs.2.46 cents covered by Sy.No.84/1 is a Government land registered as “burial ground” poramboke in the revenue records. During the inspection of the said land, it was noticed that a layout was developed in the zeroyati lands covered by Sy.No.82 and 83 belong to M/s.Vijaya Constructions represented by its Proprietor, C.R.anand. This layout known as “Chulukuri layout” locally. Previously, a wall was constructed by the GVMC around the burial ground, to develop it and to avoid encroachments. During the inspection, it was also noticed that the GVMC has constructed the wall across some part of the burial ground and left some part of it (burial ground) adjacent to the lands of M/s.Vijaya Constructions assuming that the land lie in layout. But, on a detailed survey by his field staff, it was noticed that M/s.Vijaya Constructions have constructed a wall across the burial ground in Sy.No.84/1 and encroached an extent about Ac.0.40 cents of land. Immediately, he issued a notice to M/s.Vijaya Constructions represented by its Proprietor, C.R.Anand, S/o.C.R.Ramarao on the same day under Section 7 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905 with a direction to vacate the encroached Government land within 15 days. It was sent through V.R.O., Paradesipalem for service on the encroacher on 24.12.2010. As the owner or his men were not available in the land, the notice was made substitute service by affixure on the land. M/s. Vijaya Constructions, Visakhapatnam have neither responded to the notice nor filed any representation/explanation before the respondent in the matter. Therefore, he has taken further action under the A.P. Land Encroachment Act and issued further notice under Section 6 of the Act and dismantled the wall constructed in the Government land i.e. burial ground in Sy.No.84/1 on 07.02.2011 and thereafter, evicted the encroachment made by wall constructed in the burial ground (Government land) in Sy.No.84/1 duly following the procedure laid down under the Act. Eventually, he submitted that he initiated the proceedings under the A.P.Land Encroachment Act and evicted the encroachment made by the petitioner duly following the procedure laid down under the Act. Before receipt of the orders dated 12.01.2011 passed by this Court in W.P. No.153 of 2011, he started initiation of eviction proceedings on the notice of the encroachment of the burial ground in Sy.No.84/1. Therefore, there is no disobedience of the order passed by this Court and the contempt case is liable to be dismissed. On behalf of the petitioner, reply affidavit has been filed besides reiterating the averments already narrated in the affidavit, filed in support of the contempt case, inter alia, stating that the respondent has no right over the property, which belongs to the petitioner. It is also submitted that the respondent after receipt of the notice on 02.02.2011, without abiding the orders of this Court, interfered with the possession of the petitioner and demolished the wall on 19.02.2011, in late evening hours therefore, the act itself shows that he does not want to obey the order passed by this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that he is the owner of the land in an extent of Acs.5.83 cents in Survey No.81/3, 83/1 and 83/2 situated at Pardesipalem Gram Panchayat, Chinnagadili Mandal, Madurawada Taluka, Visakhapatnam District. On the allegation that the respondent sought to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner’s land, without following due process of law, he filed writ petition and this Court on 12.01.2011 while disposing of the writ petition directed the respondents therein not to interfere with the lands in question, without following due process of law. It is also submitted that though there is a categorical direction by this Court to the respondent not to interfere with the lands in question, without following due process of law, the respondent had demolished the compound wall on 07.02.2011. In support of his case, he placed reliance in the case of PONNA NARASIMHA REDDY v. DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND OTHERS[1] wherein the relevant para is 12, which reads as under: “In M.Chinnammai vs. District Collector, Nellore[2] this court (Per S.R. Nayak, J) came to the following conclusion. It is well settled and repeatedly reiterated by the Courts that whenever public authorities do something adverse to the interest of persons or citizens their action should be traceable to an authority granted by the Constitution or other public law enactment. The District Collector, I should say that in the present case acted as a despot without bothering himself about public law requirement and directed his subordinates to take over the land pending acquisition of the land.” The case of the petitioner is that he filed writ petition seeking to declare the action of the respondents therein in interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land in question, as illegal and arbitrary and this Court directed the respondents therein not to interfere with the same, without following due process of law. The entire affidavit filed in support of the contempt case, there is no averment in the manner in which the respondent has interfered with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land in question of the petitioner situated in Survey No.81/3, 83/1 and 83/2 in an extent of Acs.5.83 cents, situated at Pardeshpalem Grampanchayat, Chinnagadila Mandal, Madhurawada Taluk, Visakhapatnam District. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent has demolished the compound wall on 07.02.2011, though there is a specific direction by this Court, for which, the respondent, in his counter, specifically submitted that it was noticed that the petitioner constructed a wall across the burial ground in Survey No.84/1 and encroached the land in an extent of about Ac.0.40 cents. Therefore, after issuing necessary notices under Section 7 and thereafter under Section 6 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905, dismantled the wall constructed in the Government land i.e. burial ground in Survey No.84/1 on 07.02.2011. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the respondent has willfully disobeyed the order passed by this Court and therefore, this contempt case is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this contempt case is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH Date: 27.09.2011 LSK [1] 2001 (3) ALT 47 [2] 1998 (6) ALT 266 = 1998 (6) ALD 678