THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CONTEMPT CASE No.944 of 2010 Dated;28.04.2011 Between Mandala Balaiah, And others. …petitioners and Sri N.Ashok, And others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CONTEMPT CASE No.944 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioners, statedly, are owners of land in survey Nos.94/1, 2, 3 and 95/1, 2, 3 in Dharmaram Village in Jagadevpur Mandal in Medak District. They filed writ petition, being W.P.No.7215 of 2010, alleging that the respondents highhandedly are laying road without due process of law. They prayed for a declaration that such laying of the road is illegal and arbitrary. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 31.03.2010. The order reads as under. The petitioners herein are from the same family. Statedly, they own agricultural lands in various survey numbers in Dharmaram Village of Jagadevepur Mandal, Gajwel Taluq in Medak District. They also allege that these are ancestral properties which are in possession of the family for over fifty years where they are cultivating vegetables. They further allege that on 25.03.2010 the staff from the Office of respondent Nos.3 and 4 trespassed into their lands and started drilling the land for the purpose of laying a new road. They, therefore, filed the instant writ petition impugning the said action as arbitrary and unconstitutional. At the stage of admission itself the Standing Counsel for respondent No.5 obtained instructions. According to him no new road is being taken up and that the existing road in the locality is being strengthened. The same is recorded. This Court further observes that if the petitioners are in possession of the land in various survey numbers as alleged in the writ petition either as owners or having encroached upon the same, they cannot be evicted without due process of law. The Writ Petition with the above observations is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. In this contempt case the petitioners allege that even though this Court observed that a road cannot be laid up on their land, the respondents allegedly are proceeding with the laying of the road and thereby flouted the orders of the Court. This Court ordered notice in Form No.I. In obedience thereto, the three contemnors are present in the Court. The second respondent in his counter affidavit would submit that the existing road in survey Nos.96 and 97 was formed fifteen years ago. So as to strengthen the road, after following the tender process the work was entrusted to M/s.S.S.Constructions under an agreement dated 01.06.2010. When the work commenced, the petitioners sent a representation. They were informed on 30.04.2010 that no road is being laid in the petitioners’ land in survey Nos.94 and 95 and that the existing road in survey Nos.96 and 97 continuing towards survey No.100 is being taken up. The counter affidavit was filed in the Court on 23.09.2010 duly serving the copy thereof on the petitioners’ Counsel. Reply affidavit is not filed rebutting the counter averments. Counsel for the petitioners has placed before this Court the photographs in support of his contention that the road is being laid in petitioners’ land. From these photographs it is not clear whether the road is being laid or strengthened in survey Nos.96 and 97 or in the land comprised in survey Nos.94 and 95 statedly belonging to the petitioners. As the counter averment made by the second respondent remains uncontroverted, the same stands proved. Therefore, the contempt case is misconceived. The contempt case is accordingly dismissed, and the contemnors are duly discharged. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 28.04.2011 vs