THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CONTEMPT CASE No.311 of 2011 Date:28.04.2011 Between: M.Venkat Reddy ..... Petitioner AND Smt.B.Vasanti .....Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri K.Chidambaaram Counsel for Respondent: Sri P.Raghavender Reddy, Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayats The Court made the following: ORDER: This contempt case is filed alleging wilful disobedience of the order dated 08.02.2011 in W.P.No.29220 of 2010. I have heard Sri. K.Chidambaram, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.Raghavender Reddy, learned standing counsel for Gram Panchayats, representing the Contemnor. The petitioner filed W.P.No.29220 of 2010 for a mandamus to declare the action of the Shamshabad Gram Panchayat in interfering with the petitioner’s building construction activity over the plot admeasuring Acs.102.77 sq. yards in survey No.760(P) of Shamshabad Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner was granted building permission by the respondent on 30.10.2009. The said permission was cancelled by the proceedings dated 26.11.2009 of the Gram Panchayat. On the appeal filed by the petitioner, the District Panchayat Officer allowed the same by his order dated 10.11.2010. After the petitioner resumed construction, the respondent has issued a series of notices directing the former to stop construction. Aggrieved by the said action, the petitioner filed the abovementioned writ petition. At the hearing, the learned standing counsel appearing for the Gram Panchayat pointed out that on 20.11.2010, the District Panchayat Officer issued memo directing the Gram Panchayat to stop further construction by the petitioner in view of the complaint made by the villagers. While, taking note of the fact that no such memo was served on the petitioner, this Court allowed the writ petition by holding that so long as the building permission granted by the Gram Panchayat remained in force, the Gram Panchayat cannot interfere with his construction activity and that if the construction raised by the petitioner is in deviation of the sanctioned plan, the Gram Panchayat shall be free to take appropriate action after giving notice to the petitioner. In the Contempt Case, the petitioner alleged that after the disposal of the writ petition, when he started making construction, the respondent along with one Narasimha, Ramesh and other staff members came to the spot on 28.02.2011 and high handedly caused obstruction and that after the petitioner gave police complaint on the said incident on 01.03.2011, the respondent along with the abovementioned persons came to his building and removed the foundation wall causing damage to the pillars of the building. In the counter-affidavit filed by the contemnor, the above allegations were denied. The contemnor has pleaded that her enquiries revealed that on 28.02.2011, the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat issued an order directing the Gram Panchayat staff to take action to stop the construction and that she was never involved in demolition of the structures either on 28.02.2011 or on 01.03.2011. The learned standing counsel for the contemnor produced the file which contains representation dated 28.02.2011 made by R.B.Nagar Welfare Association alleging that the petitioner has occupied 30 feet road and has been raising construction thereon and the order dated 28.02.2011 passed by the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat directing the Gram Panchayat staff to remove the construction made on the road. From the record, it is evident that the Gram Panchayat staff has interfered with the petitioner’s construction and removed the structures on the direction issued by the Sarpanch. As rightly pointed out by the learned standing counsel for the respondent, even the petitioner has alleged in his affidavit that it is the Sarpanch, who is causing lot of trouble. Interestingly he failed to implead the Sarpanch as a party to this contempt case. Be that as it may, the learned standing counsel for the respondent submitted that during the pendency of this contempt case, the District Panchayat Officer has issued a memo directing the Gram Panchayat to take steps for removal of the unauthorized construction allegedly made by the petitioner after following due process of law and that steps are being taken by the Gram Panchayat for implementing the said memo after issuing notice to the petitioner. In the light of the above facts, I am of the opinion that the respondent has not indulged in the acts of deliberate violation of the order of this Court and therefore, the Contempt Case is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the contempt case, C.A.No.254 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 28th April, 2011 GHN