IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CONTEMPT CASE No.7 of 2011 Between: M/s. Nav Durga Estate Hyderabad. ..... Petitioner AND Mr. Anil Chandra Puneet, IAS, Principal Secretary, Revenue Dept., Hyderabad & others. .....Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Shiv Shankar Chowdary Counsel for respondent No.2: AGP for Revenue Counsel for respondent No.3: None The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CONTEMPT CASE No.7 of 2011 ORDER: This contempt case is filed alleging willful disobedience of order dated 15.06.2009 in WPMP.No.14499 of 2009 in W.P.No.11281 of 2009. The petitioner herein filed the abovementioned Writ Petition for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in interfering with his possession of land admeasuring Ac.2.00 in Sy.No.233/8 of Nizampet Village, Qutbullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as illegal and arbitrary. In WPMP.No.14499 of 2009 filed in the said Writ Petition, this Court, while ordering notice, passed interim order dated 15.06.2009 directing the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the abovementioned land without following due process of law. Alleging that the said order is flouted by the respondents by seeking to raise constructions over the same, the present contempt case is filed. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed separate counter affidavits. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.2 (shown as respondent No.3), Sri G. Sai Prasad, Vice Chairman and Housing Commissioner, A.P. Housing Board, stated that the housing board has nothing to do with the land, as the A.P. Housing Corporation was evidently allotted the disputed land and therefore he is neither necessary nor proper party to the contempt case. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.1 i.e., Sri M.Dana Kishore, District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, it is inter alia stated that out of Ac.112.27 guntas in Sy.No.233 classified as poramboke, an extent of Ac.92.11 guntas was assigned to 25 persons for agriculture purpose, that out of the said land, an extent of Ac.5.00 in Sy.No.233/8 was assigned to one Narsamgari Sattaiah, that the legal representatives of the said Sattaiah have sold the land admeasuring Ac.3.00 to Sri G.V.B. Ranga Reddy and Sri D. Radha Krishna Reddy through registered sale deed dated 10.03.1989 contrary to the provisions of Section 3(2) of the A.P. Assigned Lands (POT) Act, 1977 and that the Tahsildar, Qutbullapur Mandal cancelled the same through proceedings dated 19.09.2005 and resumed the land. It is further stated that possession of the land was taken into Government custody under a cover of panchanama and that the resumed land was handed over to the Assistant Engineer, Housing, Medchal on 09.10.2006 for construction of houses for weaker sections under Urban Poor Housing Scheme. It is also averred that the balance Ac.2.00 of land is vacant and that no construction is undertaken by respondent No.1 and his enquiries revealed that some third parties have encroached the vacant land and have raised constructions up to basement level. At the hearing, Sri Siva Shankar Chowdary, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that even though the counter affidavits of the respondents denied raising construction by them or their subordinates, his client’s enquiries revealed that the assignees of the pattas distributed by the subordinates of respondent No.1 have been raising construction, but no material in support thereof has been filed by the petitioner. In the face of the stand taken by the respondents that neither they nor their subordinates have been raising construction over the land in dispute and in the absence of any evidence in support of the allegation that the respondents are responsible for the construction, it is not possible to hold the respondents guilty of the alleged violation of the interim order of this Court. The contempt case is accordingly dismissed as meritless. Before parting with this case, it needs to be mentioned that from the facts pleaded by the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, it is evident that the extent of Ac.2.00 is remaining vacant in Sy.No.233/8. If this land is part of the land, which was resumed in the year 2005, there is no justification for respondent No.1 and his subordinates not to take action against those who encroached the land and have been raising construction. Respondent No.1 is directed to initiate appropriate steps to evict the unauthorized persons, who are stated to have raised construction over the vacant land of Ac.2.00 in Sy.No.233/8. Such action on the part of respondent No.1 shall not be construed as violation of the order of this Court and the same is without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to assert his title over the property. As a sequel to dismissal of the contempt case, Contempt Application No.21 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 20.06.2011 ES