IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI CONTEMPT CASE No. 1333 OF 2008 Between: Shoukatunnissa @ Shah Noor Sultana ..... PETITIONER AND Sri Lakshmaiah, Superintending Engineer, Roads and Buildings Department, Ranga Reddy District and others .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI CONTEMPT CASE No. 1333 of 2008 ORDER : This contempt case is filed to punish the respondents herein for the alleged violation of the order passed by this Court dated 09.09.2007 in W.P.No.19043 of 2007. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record including the counter affidavits filed on behalf of the respondents 1,2,5 and 6. W.P.No.19043 of 2007 has filed alleging that the respondents therein namely the Superintending Engineer, Roads and Buildings Department, Ranga Reddy District, The Executive Engineer, Roads and Buildings Department, Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy District, Mandal Revenue Officer, Saroornagar Mandal, Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy District and District Collector, Ranga Reddy District were attempting to dispossess the petitioner from the land admeasuring Ac.1.00 situated in Sy.No.59 of Mamidipally village, Saroor Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District without following due process of law. It was alleged that the petitioner was sought to be dispossessed from the said land without initiating any proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 or any other statute. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court by order dated 09.09.2007 with directions as under: “Since the petitioner apprehends that she may be dispossessed by the respondents without due process of law the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage, directing the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from any of her land without following due process of law.” In this contempt case it is stated that the petitioner by her representation dated 15.09.2007, brought to the notice of all the respondents the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.19043 of 2007. It is alleged that ignoring the order of this Court in W.P.No.19043 of 2007, on 18.12.2007 the respondent No.5, working as Assistant Planning Officer in the office of HUDA and the 6th respondent, who is working in the Office of HUDA came to the petitioner’s land with men and machinery and started excavation. It is alleged that they had forcibly trespassed into the petitioner’s land by removing the fencing and stone pillars as well as the gates erected around the land of the petitioner. It is also alleged that number of fruit bearing trees standing on the land were also removed and the land was levelled in spite of the protest raised by the sons of the petitioner. It is further alleged that when the order of this Court was brought to the notice of the 5th and 6th respondents they refused to look into the same, showing disrespect to the orders of this Court. In the circumstances, alleging that the action of the 5th and 6th respondents amounts to deliberate violation of the order of this Court in W.P.No.19043 of 2007, the present contempt case is filed. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 5th respondent stating that he was never present on the site in question on 18.12.2007 and as a matter of fact, he was on leave on that day and did not attend to his official duties. It is further explained that he is not at all concerned with the laying or widening of the road and he is actually working in the Planning Department of HMDA. The said fact could not be disputed by the petitioner and as a matter of fact, the petitioner filed C.A.No.154 of 2009 stating that the 5th respondent was wrongly made a party to the contempt case instead of one P.Prathap Reddy, who was working as Deputy Tahsildar in the Office of the Mandal Revenue Office, Qutbullapur, Ranga Reddy District, who was present in the site. The 6th respondent also filed a detailed counter affidavit denying all the allegations and stating that a notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) was published on 09.04.2007 for acquisition of the land in Survey No.59 along with Sy.Nos.38 and etc., of Mamidipally village for the purpose of laying road from Mailardevpally to Srisailam road via Jalpally. It is further stated that Section 6 declaration was also published on 26.07.2007 and thereafter an award was passed after considering all the claims made on 05.10.2007. It is explained that as per the award proceedings in item No.12 relating to claims in respect of Survey No.59, the name of the petitioner herein was also mentioned as pattadar. However, in response to the notice issued under Section 9(3) and 10 of the Act, the petitioner failed to make any claim petition before the Land Acquisition Officer. In the circumstances, the award was passed on 05.10.2007 following due process of law. The allegations made by the petitioner that the respondents had used filthy language and etc., were specifically denied and it is stated that except accompanying the officials of the Engineering Department of HUDA, other Officials did not have any knowledge about the order passed by the Court in W.P.No.19043 of 2007, dated 09.09.2007 and he never uttered the words as alleged by the petitioner. As noticed above, there is no allegation of contempt against the respondents 1 to 4. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 it is stated that they were wrongly impleaded as respondents to the contempt case and they have nothing to do with the laying of the road from Mailardevpally village to Srisailam road via Jalpally and that the said road was being laid by the Hyderabad Urban Development Authority. From the pleadings narrated above, it is clear that the respondents 1 to 4 and the respondent 5 had nothing to do with the laying of the road in question and they were also not physically present at the site on 18.12.2007. Therefore, the contempt case against the respondents 1 to 5 is misconceived and the same is accordingly dismissed. So far as the 6th respondent is concerned, though he was present at the site on 18.12.2007, admittedly, the land was levelled pursuant to the award passed on 05.10.2007 following due process of law. The order passed by this Court in W.P.No.19043 of 2007 was not to dispossess the petitioner from the land in question without following due process of law. The specific case of the 6th respondent that a notification was published under Section 4(1) of the Act on 09.04.2007 followed by the declaration under Section 6 of the Act dated 26.07.2007 and the award dated 05.10.2007 could not be disputed by the petitioner. In the circumstances, even assuming that the 6th respondent was present on 18.12.2007 at the time of the commission of the alleged acts, the said action cannot be held to be without following due process of law. Hence, I do not find any merit in the contempt case and accordingly, the Contempt Case is dismissed. No costs. _____________ Date: 02.03.2010 G. ROHINI, J Ivd