THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI Contempt Case No : 1246 of 2009 Date: 05.03.2010 Between: Mohammed Ibrahim and 22 others. ..... PETITIONERS AND Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep., by its Secretary (revenue), Hyderabad and 23 others. .....RESPONDENTS HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI Contempt Case No. 1246 of 2009 ORDER: This Contempt case is filed to punish the respondents 22 to 24 under the Contempt of Courts Act for the alleged violation of the order passed by this Court dated 11.02.2008 in W.P.M.P.No.13016 of 2006 and W.V.M.P.No.3419 of 2007 in W.P.No.9440 of 2002. The case of the petitioners, in short, is as under: The petitioners filed W.P.No.9440 of 2002 seeking a declaration that the property admeasuring Ac.4.08 guntas situated in Sy.No.129 (old) corresponding new Sy.No.403/41, R.S.No.346/12, situated at Shaikpet village, comprising T.S.No.1/3/2 and 1/3/3, Road No.10,Banjara Hills is not an evacuee property and that the same is never a government land under law. The petitioners also sought a declaration to set aside the order dated 18.04.2002 under which the property in question was declared as evacuee property as arbitrary and illegal. This Court, while directing notice, initially by order dated 05.05.2002 in W.P.M.P.No.11643 of 2002 ordered that status quo as on that date shall be maintained. Subsequently, the petitioners filed W.P.M.P.No.13016 of 2006 seeking permission to construct a compound wall around the land in question stating that taking advantage of the absence of any compound wall or other protection, strangers were encroaching upon the property in question and misusing it. This Court, by order dated 25.05.2006 permitted the petitioners to construct a compound wall without prejudice to the rights of the respondents. It was also made clear by this Court that the petitioners shall not claim any equities in the event of their losing the writ petition. Though the respondents filed W.V.M.P.No.1020 of 2008, this Court declined to vacate the said order dated 25.05.2006 and by order dated 04.08.2008 directed as under: “As already noticed, while granting permission, this Court categorically observed that it is only to protect the interests of all the parties that the writ petitioners were permitted to raise a compound wall. Though the learned senior counsel stated that his clients have not removed the government’s signboard, there is not specific denial of allegation made in the counter affidavit that the petitioners have put up their own signboard to the effect that the property belongs to them. Inasmuch the question whether the property in question is an evacuee property having vested in the Government or the same is a private property belonging to the petitioners is required to be gone into in the writ petition, until the litigation comes to an end, the writ petitioners cannot claim to be the owners of the property in question. In this view of the matter, if a signboard I put up by the writ petitioners showing that the property belongs to them, they shall immediately remove the same and allow the Government’s signboard to remain on the site, which will be without prejudice to their rights.” In the meanwhile, W.V.M.P.No.3419 of 2007 filed by the respondents to vacate the order of status quo was also heard by this Court and by order dated 11.02.2008 this Court directed to post the writ petition itself for final hearing on 28.03.2008. Now the contempt case is filed alleging that on 30.07.2009 members of the Managing Committee of the masjid abutting the North Eastern side had removed the Government erected notice/ warning board and the existing compound wall between the masjid and the land in question with bulldozer levelling the same with a proclainer. It is further alleged that they had also tried to erect a shed using the Northern side compound wall in question. Immediately, the petitioners brought the said fact to the notice of the Joint Collector (respondent No.23) and Tahsildar, Shaikpet Mandal (respondent No.24). It is alleged that both the respondents did not evince any interest and failed to take any action to restrain the members of the Managing Committee of the masjid who were attempting to encroach upon the land in question and remove the sign board. On the basis of the above said allegation, it is contended by the petitioners that the respondents 22, 23 and 24 are liable to be punished under the Contempt of Courts Act, as they had failed to take necessary steps to maintain the status quo as ordered by this Court on 15.05.2002. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners in detail as well as the learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent 22, 23 and 24 and perused the counter affidavits filed on their behalf. It is to be noticed that the persons who are allegedly encroaching upon the land in question and trying to erect a shed are not parties either to the writ petition or to this contempt case. Except the allegation that the respondents 22, 23 and 24 failed to take any action to prevent the said third parties from encroaching upon the land in question, there is no other allegation against the said respondents. It is also relevant to notice that all through the specific case of the petitioners is that they are in possession of the land in question and at their instance permission was granted by this Court in W.P.M.P.No.13016 of 2006 to construct a wall around the land in question. Even with regard to the erection of the sign board, it was made clear by this Court by order dated 04.08.2008 that the petitioners shall allow the Government sign board to remain on the site without prejudice to the rights of the petitioners. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears to this Court that the grievance of the petitioners in this contempt case is only against third parties who are allegedly trying to encroach upon the land. Thus, it is nothing but a civil dispute and if aggrieved, the petitioners ought to have worked out the appropriate common law remedy for redressal of their grievance against third parties who are allegedly encroaching upon the land in question. Even assuming that the respondent 22, 23 and 24-District Collector, Joint Collector, Hyderabad and the Tahsildar, Shaikpet Mandal failed to take any action to restrain third parties from interfering with the possession of the petitioners, it is not a ground to take cognizance under the contempt of Courts Act. Accordingly, Contempt Case, being misconceived, is hereby dismissed. ______________ G. ROHINI,J Date:05-03-2010 KLP