THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Contempt Case No.1892 of 2010 (Dated : 01-11-2011) Between: Asauddin Khan S/o Nawab Himayat Nawaj Jung Bahadur Benj Circle, Vijayawada …Petitioner A n d Mr.Sameer Sharma, I.A.S., Occ: Commissioner, GHMC, Hyderabad. ….Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Contempt Case No.1892 of 2010 ORDER: This contempt case has been filed by the petitioner in Writ Petition No.11555 of 2010 complaining disobedience of the interim order dated 20-5-2010 passed therein. 2. Background facts, in a nutshell, are:- The petitioner claims to be the owner and possessor of Ac.8.16 guntas in Survey No.145 of Hyder Nagar village, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, pursuant to the preliminary decree dated 28.6.1973 passed in C.S.14 of 1958. He also claims that he has been put in possession of the property by the Receiver appointed in the said suit, as per order dated 31.10.1976 passed in Application No.139 of 1971. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No.11555 of 2010 alleging that Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) is contemplating to lay a walking track in the land owned by him without following due process of law. For better appreciation of the grievance of the petitioner, I may refer paragraph (7) of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, which reads as hereunder:- “ I beg to submit that the petitioner’s land is a patta land, the Government has lost the claim and the government has decided to mutation the names of the parties to the suit CS No.14/1958 as per their possession. Therefore the said land also does not belong to respondent. The respondent cannot without acquiring the petitioner’s land interfere with his possession or lay walking track in his land. Such acts of the respondent to lay walking tracks are illegal and amount to violating the ownership rights guaranteed under 300(A) of Constitution of India. The respondent highhandedly acting to lay a walking track. Therefore there is no alterative the respondent is not acceding to petitioner’s request and in at all looking into documents. Therefore the petitioner has no other alternative remedy except to invoke extraordinary original jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India conferred on him”. 3. An interim order came to be granted on 20th May 2010 in the writ petition, which reads as hereunder:- “ There shall be status quo existing as on today with regard to laying of any walking track in the land owned by the petitioner. Post on 07-06-2010” 4. The petitioner filed Contempt Case No.994 of 2010 complaining disobedience of the order-dated 20.5.2010 passed in Writ Petition No.11555 of 2010. The respondent in the said contempt case filed counter stating that the development of park and pathway has been taken up for the benefit of the general public in the open space earmarked for public purpose in the layout plan No.7141/84. Taking into consideration of the counter, C.C.No.994 of 2010 came to be dismissed on 07-9-2010. 5. The present contempt case has been filed complaining that the respondent started digging bore well in the land owned by the petitioner on 05-12-2010. 6. Notice before admission came to be ordered on 28-01- 2011. The respondent entered appearance through a counsel and filed counter affidavit and additional counter affidavit. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner along with Smt. Vilayat Jahan Dargahi Begum w/o late Nawab Himayat Nawaz Jung, Sri Mohd. Fareeduddin Khan s/o late Nawab Himayat Nawab Jung and Smt. Nafeez Sultana Begum D/o late Nawab Himayat Nawaz Jung, executed a registered sale deed dated 11.6.1980 in faovur of M/s. IDPL EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY in respect of 90 acres in Survey No.145. M/s. IDPL Employees Cooperative House Building Society submitted a layout to HUDA and the same has been approved. In the layout plan, the property in dispute has been earmarked for park-use, vide Permit No.7141/MP2/HUDA/84, DATED 21.4.1987. Open spaces in the lay out have been gifted to the Kukatpally Municipal Council under gift settlement deed dated 27th October, 1987. Paragraphs (6) and (7) of the counter affidavit need to be noted and they read thus:- “6. It is submitted that the claim of B.Dasarath & Others, the petitioners in OS No.245/85 on the file of Sub Court, Ranga Reddy District, the right, title and interest absolute ownership and possession of 90 acres in Sy.No.145, Hydernagar village, Kukatpally Municipallity, Ranga Reddy District of the society (donor herein) was affirmed and recognized and declared as such by the High Court of A.P. The society filed an application before the government for changing the land use from conservancy to residential in so far as the said 90 acres of land and the same was accordingly granted by the government of A.P. in G.O.Ms.No.351, MA, dated 08/08/1984. The society (donor herein) submitted a layout to HUDA the same was approved and released by HUDA by its order No.7141/MP-2/HUDA/84, dated 21/04/1987. As per the HUDA approved layout pattern the suit scheduled property earmarked for park use the layout was released, vide permit No.7141/MP2/HUDA/84, dated : 21/04/1987. 7. It is submitted that the Vice Chairman, HUDA vide Lr.No.7141/HUDA/MP2/84, dated : 21/04/1987, released the said layout duly stipulating certain conditions. The condition No.16 relating to the open place earmarked for public purpose in the area covered by the LP No.7141/84, shall be handed over to the local authority. Accordingly, M/s. IDPL Employees Cooperative House Building Society Ltd., TBC No.230, registered under Andhra Pradesh Coop Societies Act, 1964 having its office at Room No.17, Field Hostel, IDPL Colony, P.O., Balanagar, Township , Hyderabad, represented by its secretary handed over to the respondents through gift settlement deed through 794/1987, dated : 27/10/1987. Now the respondents commenced the development of park & pathway to facilitate the above society members and also general public”. 7. It is also stated in the additional counter affidavit that laying of walking track in open space gifted to GHMC has been stopped by way of an abundant caution. An attempt to dig bore well to protect the proposed park (near main gate) has also been stopped by way of abundant caution and as such, there is no willful and wanton violation of the orders of this Court dated 20-05-2010. 8. The petitioner filed reply affidavit. On 30-6-2011 and 26-7— 2011. It is stated in the reply affidavit dated 30-6-2011 that the respondent attempted to dig a bore well after dismissal of the earlier contempt case (C.C.No.994 of 2010) 9. Heard Sri A.Ravinder Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Dr.Y.Padmavathi, learned Standing Counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation appearing for the respondent. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondent attempted to dig a bore well in the land owned by the petitioner after dismissal of earlier contempt case and therefore, it amounts to violation of the interim orders dated 20-5-2010 passed in W.P.No.11555 of 2010. Learned counsel refers photographs filed along with the contempt case. The photographs appear to have been taken on 05.12.2010. He would further contend that the petitioner retained Ac.8.16 guntas in Survey No.145 after executing a registered sale deed in favour of M/s. IDPL EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY and in which case, the layout plan approved by the HUDA cannot be in respect of Ac.8.16 guntas covered under the sale deed. The land claimed by the petitioner stands outside the layout and in which case, the respondent cannot dug a bore well in the land, which is in occupation of the petitioner. 11. Per contra; learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent submits that an attempt to dig a bore well is in the open space ear marked for public purpose in the lay out plan. She would also contend that the attempt to dig a bore well even in the open place earmarked in the lay out plan for public purpose has been stopped and therefore, there is no violation of the interim order passed in the writ petition. Another contention has been advanced by her that the earlier contempt case came to be dismissed taking into consideration the counter filed by the respondent and therefore, the petitioner cannot be permitted to come up once again with the complaint of violation of the interim order dated 20-5-2010 passed in W.P.No.11555 of 2010. Learned Standing Counsel refers the Photostat copy of the gift settlement deed and the Photostat copy of the lay out plan. By referring these two documents, learned Standing Counsel would contend that attempt has been made to dig a bore well in the open space, which was gifted to the then Kukatpally Municipal Council. 12. In response; learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondent is relying on the revised layout plan, which is without putting on notice the effected parties, and therefore, no reliance can be placed on the said lay out plan. 13. This Court, by order dated 20-5-2010 passed in W.P.No.11555 of 2010, directed the respondent to maintain status quo with regard to laying of any walking track in the land owned by the petitioner. Earlier, the petitioner filed C.C.No.994 of 2010 complaining that the respondent violated the status quo order. The said contempt case came to be dismissed on 7.9.2010. The present contempt case has been filed complaining that on 5-12-2010, the respondent attempted to dig a bore well in the disputed land. The respondent stated in his counter that even the attempt to dig a bore well in the open space earmarked in the lay out plan has been stopped. 14. I have gone through the writ affidavit. Indisputably, Survey No.145 admeasures to a large extent. The petitioner along with three others executed a registered sale deed for an extent of 90 acres in Survey No.145 in favour of M/s. IDPL EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY. The Society submitted a lay out plan for approval. HUDA approved the lay out subject to certain terms and conditions. The society executed gift deed in respect of open spaces. The petitioner filed contempt case complaining that the respondent is interfering with his possession in respect of Ac.8-16 guntas. It is nowhere stated in the writ affidavit as to on which side of the lay out plan his land is situated. There appears to be some disputes between the Society and the petitioner, which is evident from the letter dated 30.10.2008 addressed by the petitioner to the Tahasildar, Balangar Mandal, copy of which finds place at Page No.11 of the material papers. Be that as it may, since the respondent has specifically stated in the counter affidavit that the activity of drilling of bore well has also been stopped, I am of the view that the contention of the petitioner that the respondent violated the status quo order with regard to laying of walking track has no substance. 15. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is dismissed. No costs. _____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt.01-11-2011 *RAR