THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY CONTEMPT CASE No.1560 of 2010 ORDER: This Contempt Case is filed alleging that the respondents have violated the directions issued by this Court in order, dated 24.02.2010 passed in Writ Petition No.28835 of 2009. W.P.No.28835 of 2009 was filed with the prayer, which reads as under: “Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in threatening to demolish the petitioner’s house bearing H.No.44-2-40/1 in an extent of 70 sq.yards situated in Ward No.36, vide new Assessment No.284075 Padalarevu, Gunadala, Vijayawada, Krishna District, without issuing any notice and without following the due procedure contemplated under the Law, as being illegal, arbitrary and improper and consequently direct the respondent authorities not to take any coercive steps to demolish the petitioner’s house.” When it was the case of the petitioner that without following due process of law, the respondents are taking steps to demolish the structures covered by H.No.44-2-40/1, it was stated by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents that either consent of the petitioner would be obtained or the property in question would be acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. In view of the said undertaking, the writ petition was disposed of directing the respondents that if the property in question is required for road widening, the same shall not be acquired unless the consent of the petitioner is obtained or the proceedings are initiated under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. In the Contempt Case, it is the grievance of the petitioner that in spite of such directions from this Court, without obtaining any consent from the petitioner or without initiating land acquisition proceedings, the house in question was demolished. A detailed counter-affidavit is filed by the first respondent - Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Vijayawada. In the counter-affidavit, it is stated that pursuant to the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.28835 of 2009, the petitioner was issued notice, dated 27.07.2010 requiring him to produce documents, if any, to prove his ownership over the property and also to file objections, if any, but he has not produced any documentary evidence to show that he is the owner of the property in question. He merely pleaded that he purchased the property for his two daughters and requested to allot two flats in the proposed housing offered by Vijayawada Municipal Corporation. It is clearly stated that the petitioner was residing in another structure constructed in the encroachment of canal bund poramboke and it was in the name of the petitioner’s wife Smt. G.Krishna Kumari. It is further stated that the petitioner himself also agreed for demolition of the p````````````````````````````roperty in question for the purpose of road widening and suppressing the same, the present Contempt Case is filed. It is also stated that the site in question is 70 sq.yards and that for the total property, VMC allotted two flats to the tenants and another flat to the petitioner. In the absence of filing proof of ownership of the property by the petitioner, it cannot be said that the respondents have violated the directions issued by this Court. As evident from the counter-affidavit, the persons, whose properties were acquired for road widening, are already provided alternative flats, which include the flat allotted to the wife of the petitioner. As this Contempt Case is filed without disclosing actual position, it deserves to be dismissed with costs. The Contempt Case is accordingly dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only). _______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 23rd JUNE, 2011. kvni