HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CONTEMPT CASE NO. 576 OF 2009 Between: Lanke Maheswara Rao and one another ..... PETITIONERS AND M/s Reliance Industries Limited .....RESPONDENT ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This Contempt Case has been filed under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for disobedience of orders dated 18.2.2009 passed by this Court in CMA MP No. 245 of 2009 in CMA No. 3/2009. 2. This Court by order dated 18.2.2009 in C.M.A.MP No. 245 of 2009 in CMA No. 3 of 2009 passed the following order. “the interim order passed by this Court in CMAMP No. 6 of 2009 dated 2.2.2009, is modified as under: “Respondent No. 1/appellant shall maintain status quo as of today for all purposes regarding the suit schedule property pending further orders”. 3. The main grievance of the petitioners in this Contempt Case is that on 21.4.2009 the respondent herein came to the suit schedule land with a crane along with its men and started digging up the status quo land and on information they rushed to the spot and questioned the acts of respondent, then respondent without giving any reply directed his men to demolish the fencing of the land and the same was demolished, and on 5.4.2009 it was noticed that water was filled in the dug up suit schedule land. Hence, despite the positive orders issued by this Court, the respondent herein thereby committed contempt of order of this Court. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that Sri Venkat Sivaraman, S/o Venkatraman, vice President, working in the respondent’s Company is not competent to depose the facts by filing an affidavit and Subrata Ghosh S/o G.Suprabath Ghosh, Senior Manager is competent and he has not filed any affidavit. But subsequently, Subrata Ghosh, S/o G. Suprabath Ghosh, Senior Manager, Commercial, working in the respondent’s Company at Reliance Corporate Part, Mumbai filed a counter affidavit to the effect that there was no digging activities done by the respondent and the Contempt Case is misconceived. He also stated that there is no deliberate disobedience of the status quo order passed by this Court and they never violated the Court orders. In reply to averments in Paragraph 3 of the affidavit that the respondent stated that he came to the suit schedule land with crane along with its men to demolish the fencing of the land and that the same was demolished are not true. For this the petitioners also filed reply affidavit. 5. To know the correctness or otherwise of the allegations, this Court on 27.1.2010 passed the following order by appointing Sri Sampath Prabhakar Reddy, as Commissioner, which reads as under: “Heard. Both the parties are disputing with regard to identity of the land and also with regard to the alleged violation of the status quo order passed by this Court on 18.2.2009 in CMA MP No,. 245 of 2009 in CMA No. 3 of 2009. Counter affidavit has been field. In view of the above, to ascertain the factual truth and to arrive at the correct conclusion, we deem it appropriate to appoint a Commissioner to make a local inspection with regard to nature and physical features of the land. Accordingly, Sri Sampath Prabhakar Reddy, Advocate, HIG Block-3, Flat13, Near Park, Bagh Lingampally, Hyderabad- 500044, is hereby appointed as Commissioner. The Commissioner is directed to give notice to both the parties before executing the work and answer work memos, if any, filed before him. Both the parties are directed to appear before the Commissioner and the Commissioner’s fee is fixed at R. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) payable by the respondent. Post this matter after three weeks for submitting the report by the Commissioner.” 6. We have perused the report submitted by the Commissioner. It is stated in the report that in pursuance of the notice given by the Commissioner dated 5.2.2010, the petitioners’ counsel submitted his Work Memo on 9.2.2010 and similarly the counsel for the respondent also submitted his Work Memo on 10.2.2010 and they accompanied the Commissioner and the Commission was accordingly executed on 12.2.2010. With regard to identification, fencing, water and shed existing in the identified place of the schedule land, revealed from the report of the Commissioner at paragraph 9 to 13 to the following effect: “9. After walking through the bud, we all entered the suit schedule property, which was identified by both the parties and proceeded first from West to East side of the schedule property. The bund was existing on all four sides of the schedule property and the said bund is of about 6 feet in height and about 4 feet in width at some places and about 3 feet high and 4 feet in width in some other places. (Photograph Nos.5 to 7) There exists some “Sarkari Tumma Chetlu” (S at some places obstructing the bund path (photograph Nos. 8 to 10). As such we had to climb the bund (Photograph NO. 11). I also observed that there are small shells at some of the places on thebund (Photograph Nos. 12 & 13). I proceeded from East towards Southern side through the Kachha road (Photograph Nos. 14 and 15), which is being used by the villagers. On the eastern side of kachha road, there is existing canal called as “Mandaara Kaluva” in which even now the water is flowing (Photograph Nos. 16 and 17). The Counsel for the petitioners and the Counsel for the Respodnent have no dispute with regard to identification of the schedule land. 10. While coming back in the direction east to west, I have noticed that the entire schedule land is covered by small bushes (Photograph Nos. 18 to 20) of about 1 to 2 feet height and there is no sign of any water existing in the entire schedule land except the “Mandaara Kaluva”. Further, on the bund of entire schedule land there are some cement fencing poles ) without barbed wire) erected, which are nearly 10 to 15 (Photograph No. 21). I also observed that some fencing poles are lying on the ground and they are 8 to 10 and another 8 to 10 poles are lying on the bund. (Photograph Nos. 22 to 24). The petitioners counsel alleged that there existed a sign board displaying the name of the petitioner with Cell number showing that the land was handed over by the 1st Additional Junior Civil Judge, in E.P.No. 40 of 2008. However, there is no such sign board existing in any place of the schedule property. 11. The petitioner’s Counsel also told me that there was a shed. However, I did not find any trace of such shed existing in the identified place. The place where it is alleged that there was a shed is also photographed. There are no signs supporting the allegation ( Photograph No. 25) . 12. When there was no dispute with regard to the identification of the schedule property, I proceeded from East to South, and by climbing the bund, got down to the neighbouring plot . There is no water in the said land and there is no iota of evidence to its existing in the near past. After verifying the said land, I further went towards West side of the suit schedule property and found neither water nor digging. This part of the land is fully plain land. (Photograph Nos. 26 to 33.) 13. After going through the entire schedule property, I found that the entire schedule property is a plain land with small shrubs of about 1 to 2 feet height (Photograph Nos. 34 to 39), with sprinkling of some small shells on the bund here and there. (Photograph Nos. 40 and 41). There are no diggings, and there is no water existing, and the entire schedule property is covered by bund and the actual height and width of the bund varies from place to place and at some places said Height and Width is approximately 6 feet and 4 feet respectively and in some places the height is 4 feet and the width is 3 feet and in some other places it is only 3 feet height and 2 feet width (photograph Nos. 42 to 44). There exists some “Sarkari Tumma Chetlu” (Sarkari Tumma Trees) at some of the places on the bund obstructing the bund path (Photograph Nos. 45 to 48).” 7. Sri. B. Prakash, learned Senior Counsel contended that the allegations of removing the fencing with the help of proclainer, the Commissioner’s report clearly discloses that there are no digging activities and as regards the fencing, it was not demolished or removed and it was existing even prior to the appointment of the Commissioner and therefore, there is no deliberate disobedience of the order passed by this Court. 8. The point that arises for consideration is whether the contemnor has committed any deliberate disobedience of the status-quo order passed by this Court on 18.2.2009 in CMA MP No. 245 of 2009 in CMA No. 3 of 2009. 9. To ascertain the facts, as already stated above, we appointed the Commissioner and the Commissioner submitted his report together with photographs. A plain reading of the report, with regard to allegations viz., identification of the schedule land, existence of sign board displaying the name of the petitioner with cell number, and water and digging, clearly shows that in the suit schedule property found neither water nor digging and there is no sign board existing in any place and there exists some “Sarkari Tumma Chetlu”. The report of the Commissioner further clearly indicates that there is no digging activities and the fencing was existing even prior to the order passed by this Court dated 18.2.2009 and the report of the Commissioner is supported by photographs. 10. Basing on the report of the Commissioner supported by photographs, we see no contempt arises and the respondent has not committed any willful and deliberate disobedience of the order passed by this Court on 18.2.2009. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is dismissed. The Commissioner shall be paid another sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) towards fee, payable by the respondent. _______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J _______________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD ,J DATE: 11.03.2010 KA ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD copies.