HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CONTEMPT CASE No.150 OF 2009 DATED:13.11.2009 Between: G.Ranga Reddy .. Petitioner And Navin Mittal and another .. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CONTEMPT CASE No.150 OF 2009 ORDER: The petitioner is allegedly owner of land admeasuring 675 square yards (Premises No.3-4-149) situated at Lingampally. He is statedly exercising rights of ownership on that property duly paying taxes and levies to various authorities. It appears the Department of Endowments initiated action under Section 83 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (the Act, for brevity) and passed an eviction order. The petitioner then filed a suit under sub Section (2) of Section 84 of the Act. The same being O.S.No.712 of 1989 was decreed by the Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Sometime in 2000, with a view to construct a new structure, petitioner started demolishing the old structure. The second respondent intervened, and claiming the Government title lodged a complaint against petitioner. Alleging that there is continuous interference by the Revenue Authorities, he filed W.P.No.1241 of 2007 seeking a writ of Mandamus against the action of the respondents in interfering with the petitioner’s possession as illegal and unconstitutional and for consequential directions. This Court passed an interim order on 23.01.2007 directing the respondents not to disturb the possession of the petitioner. The respondents then moved W.V.M.P.No.1577 of 2007. This Court dismissed the same on 13.02.2007 making the interim order absolute. In the Contempt Case, it is alleged that in spite of the orders of this Court, second respondent erected the sign board showing that the disputed property belongs to the Government and that second respondent is instigating the unsocial elements to trespass into it. After receiving the notice, respondents filed counter affidavits. In the counter affidavit of second respondent, the allegation that the petitioner is in possession of the property is denied. It is further alleged that the property falls in T.S.Nos.14 and 19, Ward No.190, Block-D of Lingampally Village as described in Column No.20, “G Temple” and in Column No.23, Hanuman Temple, to an extent of 580.54 square yards. The petitioner trespassed into the land and demolished the temples. Therefore, a police complaint was lodged, being Cr.No.13 of 2007, and a board was erected on 11.01.2007 as directed by first respondent. The allegation that respondents interfered with the possession of the petitioner is denied. The complaint made by the petitioner is two fold. The first aspect of the matter is whether the respondent erected the board after the orders of this Court, dated 13.02.2007. In the counter affidavit filed by second respondent in W.P.No.1241 of 2007 (sworn on 01.02.2007) along with W.V.M.P., an averment is made that a police complaint is lodged on 11.01.2007 and after the illegal acts alleged, the Government erected the board to preserve and protect the property. In the counter affidavit of second respondent in the Contempt Case, the petitioner made a statement that second respondent erected the sign board mentioning ‘the disputed property belongs to the Government’. No date is however given as to when the board was erected. In the counter affidavit filed by second respondent in the Contempt Case it is stated that the board was erected on 11.01.2007. From these pleadings, it is reasonable to infer all probabilities that even before filing the counter affidavit in writ petition, the second respondent erected the board and therefore, the allegation that the board was erected after the interim order dated 13.02.2007 was passed, has to be rejected. On that account, the contempt jurisdiction is barred. The second aspect of the matter is whether the second respondent in spite of receiving the direction, instigated unsocial elements to trespass into the property and advised them to interfere. It is no doubt true that in the counter affidavit filed by second respondent in the Contempt Case, the allegation is not specifically denied though there is a general denial in para No.1. This does not, however, amount to admission, in the facts and circumstances of the case. Initially, except making a petition averment no proof is offered to the Court that second respondent has instigated the anti social elements. Further, in the representation, dated 26.12.2008 given by the petitioner to the District Collector, no such allegation is made except stating that the existence of the sign board is giving a handle for unsocial elements to trespass into the property and creating all sorts of nuisance. Therefore, it is improbable that second respondent instigated unsocial elements to trespass into the land. I, however, hasten to add that it shall be the duty of second respondent to protect the Government land. If it is found, in the main writ petition, that the land has been encroached by unsocial elements, second respondent alone shall have to be held responsible. Insofar as this Contempt Case is concerned, this Court is convinced that the contempt, as alleged, is not proved. With the above observations, the Contempt Case is dismissed. ______________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) 13.11.2009 KH