HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY C.C.Nos.1115, 1127 and 1128 of 2010 Date: February 23, 2011 Between: M/s.Madhavi Fisheries Ltd., Jammulapalem village, Bapatla Mandal, Guntur District, represented by its Managing Director M.Suri Satyanarayana Raju, S/o.Venkatarama Raju and others … Petitioners And Sri B.Ramanjaneyulu, I.A.S., District Collector, Guntur District and another … Respondents COMMON ORDER: These three contempt cases are filed with similar allegation of violation of the orders of this Court; as such they are heard together and disposed of by this common order. For the purpose of disposal, I refer to the facts as arise in C.C.No.1115 of 2010. This contempt case is filed alleging willful and deliberate violation of order dated 20-07-2010 passed by this Court in W.P.M.P.No.21995 of 2010 in W.P.No.17420 of 2010. Petitioners have constructed fresh water fish tanks in the lands owned by them and doing fish culture therein. On the ground that they encroached into Government land in constructing such tanks, respondents have initiated proceedings under Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (for brevity, ‘the Act’). When petitioners approached this Court seeking a writ of mandamus to declare the action of respondents in demolishing fish tanks constructed by them as illegal, this Court, by the aforementioned order, issued directions to respondents to the effect that unless respondents earmark portions which are encroached by petitioners pursuant to notice issued under Section 7 of the Act, no steps shall be taken for demolition of fish tanks. It is the allegation of petitioners that in violation of directions issued by this Court, without earmarking the portions covered by the notice issued under Section 7 of the Act, respondents, in a contemptuous manner, demolished the fish tanks constructed by them. Second respondent, Tahsildar, Bapatla, Guntur District, has filed counter-affidavit. While denying various allegations made by petitioners, in the counter-affidavit, it is stated that petitioners, in addition to their patta lands in Jammulapalem and Mulapalem villages of Bapatla Mandal, have encroached Government lands and constructed fish tanks. It is stated that notice under Section 7 of the Act was issued on 11-06-2010 before passing of order of this Court on 20-07-2010 in W.P.M.P.No.21995 of 2010 and as per the directions of this Court a team of surveyors was drafted for earmarking of Government land covered under fish tanks of petitioners. In the counter-affidavit, particulars and extents of land encroached by petitioners are given and it is categorically stated therein that no demolition was undertaken after directions of this court on 20-07-2010. While disputing correctness of photographs filed by petitioners, it is stated that the same are taken when demolition work was being carried out before passing of orders by this Court. A reply-affidavit is filed by petitioners to the counter- affidavit filed by the second respondent. In the reply- affidavit, it is pleaded that in connected matters, the first respondent has admitted demolition and contrary to the same, in the present counter-affidavit filed by the second respondent, respondents are denying demolition of fish tanks of petitioners. Heard learned counsel for petitioners and also learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondents. Learned Government Pleader has placed before this Court relevant original file in proof of serving notice under Section 7 of the Act and also further notice before taking up the survey for earmarking the land encroached by petitioners. A perusal of the said file indicates that all petitioners who have constructed tanks by encroaching Government lands were served notice under Section 7 of the Act and further notice to earmark such portions by conducting survey. The original file contains the signatures of petitioners against whom there are allegations of encroachment. Although it is the case of petitioners that respondents have demolished the fish tanks without earmarking portions alleged to have been encroached; in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondents it is clearly stated that no demolitions were made after passing of order dated 20-07-2010 by this Court. Learned counsel for petitioners has disputed the same and contended that the stand of respondents in the present case is contrary to that of the stand in other connected matters. But, from the material placed before this Court, no conclusion can be drawn to the effect that steps have been taken for demolition of fish tanks constructed by petitioners after this Court passed orders on 20-07-2010. The original file also indicates that only survey work is taken up to earmark portions which are encroached by petitioners. In any event, in absence of clear material to show that respondents have undertaken demolition of fish tanks in question after the order of this Court dated 20-07-2010, it cannot be said that respondents have flouted directions of this Court, attracting the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. For the foregoing reasons, contempt cases are liable to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________ (R. SUBHASH REDDY, J) February 23, 2011 MRR