Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1202 (AP)

A. S. Reddy v. Ram Narsimha Rao

2001-10-05

GODA RAGHURAM, S.B.SINHA

body2001
S. B. SINHA, J. ( 1 ) CC No. 1966 of 1999 is filed by one Sri A. S. Rcddy complaining violation of the orders passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal Nos. 45 and 217 of 1999 dated 24. 2. 1999. These two writ appeals arose out of the orders passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in W. V. M. P. No. 4249 of 1998 in W. P. No. 32774 of 1998 and in W. V. M. P. No. 4306 of 1998 in W. P. No. 15229 of l998. ( 2 ) WHEN the contempt case came up for hearing, having regard to the controversy involved and also having regard to the fact that all the writ petitions involved consideration of common questions of fact and law, the writ petitions and the contempt case were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. ( 3 ) AT the first instance, we may deal with the writ petitions. ( 4 ) THE basic fact of the matter leading to the filing of the writ petitions may be noticed thus: s. Nos. 111 to 118 of Balanagar village and Mandal, Rangareddy District, cover the constructions in dispute in all the writ petitions. According to the revenue records of Balanagar village, land to the extent of Ac. 601 gts. in S. Nos. 111 and 112 originally stands in the name of Mohd. Bandgi, Mohd. Yaknb and Mohd. Ghouse. An extent of Ac. 11. 25 gts. in S. Nos. l 13 to 116 and 118 stands in the name of Mudike Mallaiah and an extent of Ac. 0. 16 cts in S. No. 117/2 stands in the name of Abdul Arneed Khan. Sri Mudiki Mallaiah is alleged to have obtained occupancy rights in respect of Ac. 6. 01 gts. as a protected tenant. He filed a declaration under Section 6 (1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short the Act ) declaring an extent of Ac. 18. 03 gts. in S. Nos. lll to 117, 117/1 and 118 in the capacity of Kartha of the Hindu undivided family. The Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceilings, Hyderabad issued proceedings dated 20. 7. 1978 to the effect that the said lands are not attracted by the provisions of the Act on the ground that they are agricultural lands. in S. Nos. lll to 117, 117/1 and 118 in the capacity of Kartha of the Hindu undivided family. The Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceilings, Hyderabad issued proceedings dated 20. 7. 1978 to the effect that the said lands are not attracted by the provisions of the Act on the ground that they are agricultural lands. ( 5 ) THEREAFTER (1) G. Vijayasree, (2) V. Sundar Raj, (3) M. Mallaiah, (4) Smt. K. Suryakumari, (5) D. Bharathamma, (6) V. Hans Raj and (7) K. Pushpha Kumari filed declarations in respect of the aforesaid land claiming that they acquired the land under Court decrees. After enquiry, proceedings dated 3. 10. 1984 under Sections 8 (1) and 8 (3) of the Act were issued provisionally holding them as surplus landholders totalling to an extent of 49,373. 26 Sq. mts. The Special Officer and Competent Authority under the Act finally issued proceedings in C. C. Nos. Fl/49/83 to Fl/55/83 dated 16. 8. 1993 under Section 8 (4) of the Act declaring the above extent as surplus land. The declarants filed appeal under Section 33 of the Act before the Appellate Authority i. e. . Commissioner thereagainst. However, before the appellate authority Md. Khader son of M. A. Ghouse and Hameed Khan and others filed implead petitions on the ground that the land admeasuring Ac. 6. 01 gts. is Mashratul Khidmat service mam and no protected tenancy rights can be granted to the tenant Mallaiah as they are inam lands of religious institution under Section 102 of Hyderabad (Telangana Area) Tenancy Act. The aforementioned seven persons appear to have filed suits before the civil Court claiming adverse possession and for grant of permanent injunction and civil Court appears to have directed to enter the names of declarants. Number of writ petitions were also filed before the High Court. The declarants also made claims before the appellate authority seeking exemption as agricultural land on the ground that the said lands were not included in the master plan of 1976. Taking all these factors into consideration and as there were disputes as regards the inter se rights of declarants and inam holders, the appellate authority by order dated 14. 11. The declarants also made claims before the appellate authority seeking exemption as agricultural land on the ground that the said lands were not included in the master plan of 1976. Taking all these factors into consideration and as there were disputes as regards the inter se rights of declarants and inam holders, the appellate authority by order dated 14. 11. 1995 set aside the order passed by the Special Officer and Competent Authority under Section 8 (4) of the Act and remanded the matter of the Special Officer and competent authority for fresh determination after issuing notice to the declarants and implead petitioners. Now, the matter is pending before the Special Officer and competent authority. ( 6 ) THE petitioners in all these writ petitions are alleged to have purchased or in possession of the above surplus lands wherein the disputed constructions are made after the declaration of the above extent as surplus land under the Act. It appears that one Mr. E. S. Sethji who is arrayed as respondent in some of the writ petitions herein has purchased a part of the surplus land. ( 7 ) THE petitioner in W. P. No. 14421 of 1998 is alleged to have obtained premises on lease from E. S. Complex from the 3rd respondent-E. S. Sethji and commenced businesses in the name and style of Samskriti as exclusive stockist of Bombay Dyeing at Saibabanagar. When the respondents started demolishing the E. S. Complex on 24. 5. 1998, he filed the writ petition seeking a writ or order in the nature of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in seeking to demolish the constructions as illegal and arbitrary and without jurisdiction. ( 8 ) THE petitioner in W. P. No. 14612 of 1998 is a purchaser of a portion of the land an extent of 120 Sq. yds. from E. S. Sethji and alleged to have presented a sale deed for registration with the Sub-Registrar, Kukatpally on 20. 1. 1997. Accordingly to him, the master plan is not applicable as the land is classified as agricultural land. ( 9 ) THE petitioner in W. P. No. 15027 of 1998 claims that he is the absolute owner and possessor of H. No. 2-100/1, Balanagar main road, Kukatpally admeasuring 10 guntas in S. No. 112. He claims to have been residing therein for over 25 years running fire wood shop. ( 9 ) THE petitioner in W. P. No. 15027 of 1998 claims that he is the absolute owner and possessor of H. No. 2-100/1, Balanagar main road, Kukatpally admeasuring 10 guntas in S. No. 112. He claims to have been residing therein for over 25 years running fire wood shop. He also claims that the house is assessed to municipal tax and he is regularly paying the tax. Apprehending demolition of the structures, he filed the writ petition. ( 10 ) THE petitioners in W. P. Nos. 15214 and 15229 of 1998 are alleged to have purchased small extents of house sites and constructions have also been made thereupon. Some of the petitioners are carrying on business in the said constructions. Their case is that they had applied for regularisation of the constructions in terms of G. O. Ms. No. 343 dated 2. 12. 1997 and G. O. Ms. No. 356 but no orders have been passed. Apprehending demolition of their constructions, they filed the writ petitions to regularise the constructions made by them. ( 11 ) WP No. 32774 of 1998 is filed by the petitioners in WP No. 15229 of 1998 declaring the action of the respondents-authorfties in demolishing their structures as illegal and arbitrary. They also mention about the orders issued by the Government in G. O. Ms. No. 419, M. A. , dated 30,7. 1998 regarding regularisation of all the buildings including the buildings constructed even on the excess and covered by the Urban Land Ceiling Act ( 12 ) WP No. 15684 of 1998 is filed by M/s Sri Ambica Selections, E. S. Complex. He is a tenant of 3rd respondent. Apprehending demolition of the building in which the petitioner was carrying on business, this writ petition is filed. ( 13 ) W. P. NO. 27402 of 1998 is filed by K. Suhrahmanyam and 36 others challenging the initiation of the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 in relation to the land in dispute as illegal, arbitrary. The petitioners are alleged to have purchased various tracts of land in the aforementioned survey numbers declared as surplus by the Government under the Act. The petitioners are alleged to have purchased various tracts of land in the aforementioned survey numbers declared as surplus by the Government under the Act. Their case is that the lands are outside the purview of the provisions of the Act and in support thereof relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Alia Mohammadi Begum v. State of U. P. , AIR 1993 SC 2365, on the ground that the master plans has no application to the said land. An extent of Ac. 6. 00 of land in S. Nos. 116 and 118 was transferred in favour of the members of Akshaya Patra Co-operative Housing Society for which HUDA had already sanctioned layout on 1. 3. 1983 and building permissions were also granted and constructions were made long back. They purchased the land for consideration and are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land and it cannot be termed as vacant land nor it can be computed to the holding of respondents 9 to 16 as excess land. ( 14 ) AS already noticed hereinbefore, the common ground urged in the counter-affidavits filed by the respondents was that the land in question was declared as surplus under the Act and that whatever transactions took place after the land was declared as surplus including the sanctions made by the municipal authorities are null and void. Jt was contended that constructions have been made in the surplus land with an intention to grab the valuable land and to seek regularisation of such unauthorised constructions subsequently. The Special Officer under ULC Act addressed a letter dated 4. 2. 1995 to the Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, Hyderabad intimating that an extent of 49,373. 26 Sq. mtrs of land in the aforementioned survey numbers of Balanagar village had been declared as surplus and requested to stop further registrations of the said lands. Subsequently, number of documents were presented for registration but the same have been referred to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Balanagar, The documents do not contain the survey numbers. It was further contended that as per the provisions of the Act, after filing of the statements under Section 6 (1) of the Act, no sale transactions were to be made without the permission of the Special Officer and competent authority under ULCAct. The constructions were made in violation of the Building Rules. It was further contended that as per the provisions of the Act, after filing of the statements under Section 6 (1) of the Act, no sale transactions were to be made without the permission of the Special Officer and competent authority under ULCAct. The constructions were made in violation of the Building Rules. In the counter-affidavits, it was stated that the constructions, which were illegal, were only demolished. ( 15 ) IT may be noted herein that in all the writ petitions, this Court granted interim stay of demolition. ( 16 ) MR. C. Hanumantha Rao, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners would submit that having regard to the fact that the lands in question are only agricultural lands, the provisions of the ULC Act cannot have any application. The learned Counsel would contend that the Apex Court in Alia Mohammadi Begum v. State of U. P. , categorically held if the land has been specified in the master plan existing at the time of commencement of the Act for a purpose other than agriculture, then the land shall not be deemed to be mainly used for the purpose of agriculture by virtue of Explanation (C) in Section 2 (o) of the Act. ( 17 ) IT was further submitted that the State as one-time measure has taken a policy decision to regularise all constructions, which have been made in deviation of the Building Rules, and the petitioners have filed applications pursuant to and in furtherance of the said policy decision, and, thus, the respondents acted arbitrarily in demolishing the structures pending consideration of the said representation. The learned Counsel would further contend that keeping in view the order dated 14. 11. 1995 passed by the appellate authority under Section 33; the impugned action could not have been taken as this Court made it clear that no authority would interfere with the right of the petitioners to carry out repairs to the buildings. ( 18 ) HAVING regard to the factual matrix of the matters as noticed hereinbefore, the points which arise for consideration, are: (1) Whether the action of the respondents in demolishing the structures of the petitioners herein is legal particularly when the proceedings under the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulations are pending? (2) Whether the alleged contemnors have committed wilful default of the order-dated 24. 2. (2) Whether the alleged contemnors have committed wilful default of the order-dated 24. 2. 1999 in view of the fact that the representation for regularisation of the constructions in terms of G. O. 419 has not been disposed of by the respondents ? point No. 1 ( 19 ) AN order was passed under Section 8 (4) of the said Act whereby and whereunder it was held that the transferors of the petitioners are holders of excess vacant land. On appeal preferred thereagainst before the appellate authority under Section 33 of the said Act, by order dated 14. 11. 1995 remanded the matter to the Special Officer and competent authority setting side the order passed under Section 8 (4) of the Act for fresh determination after issuing notice to the declarants and others. ( 20 ) THE case of the respondent-Municipality is that the constructions raised by the petitioners were absolutely illegal and the demolition had been made upon complying with all the legal requirements. ( 21 ) AS noticed hereinbefore, it is not in dispute that the proceedings under the act have not reached finality and the appellate authority having noticed the inter se rights of the various parties including the impleaded parties and various orders of the civil Court and this Court, remanded the matter to the Special Officer competent authority and the matter is now pending before primary authority for fresh consideration. It is true that the Apex Court in Alia Mohammadi Begum (supra), has held that in the event the master plan had been prepared in relation to the area in question, the provisions of the said Act will have no application. ( 22 ) THE fact that the land in question is within the urban agglomeration and falls within the jurisdiction of Kukatpally Municipal limits is not in dispute. The question as to whether transferors of the petitioners were holders of excess land is a pure question of fact. Such question being pending consideration before the compelent authority in terms of the appellate order dated 14. 11. 1995, and as no final determination thereof has taken place, it is not for this Court at this stage to arrive at a finding whether the decision of the Apex Court in Ada Mohammadi Begum (supra) is applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. 11. 1995, and as no final determination thereof has taken place, it is not for this Court at this stage to arrive at a finding whether the decision of the Apex Court in Ada Mohammadi Begum (supra) is applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. ( 23 ) THE question as to whether the area has been shown in the master plan or not is again essentially a question of fact, which will have to be determined by the competent authority in terms of the provisions of the Act. The petitioners would thus be at liberty to raise all contentions before the appropriate authority. The rights of the petitioners would depend upon the ultimate decision of the authorities under the provisions of the U. L. C Act. ( 24 ) ASSUMING that the transferors of the petitioners were not possessing surplus lands under the U. L. C Act and the lands have not vested in the State in terms of the provisions thereof, the same does not mean that the petitioners arc entitled to raise constructions without complying with the provisions of the A. P. Municipalities Act and the Building Rules framed thereunder. The very fact that the petitioners have fifed applications for regularisation of the constructions under G. O. Ms. No. 356, M. A. dated 17. 12. 1997, G. O. Ms. No. 343 M. A. dated 2. 12. 1997 and G. O. 419 dated 30. 7. 1998 goes to show that such constructions have been raised without obtaining valid permissions therefor. ( 25 ) INITIALLY, Government in G. O. Ms. No. 243 M. A. , dated 22. 5. 1996 issued orders for regularisation of unauthorised constructions on or before 30. 9. 1997 in the plots/sites upto 200 sq. mts. where the title deed vests with the plot/site holders and such time was extended from time to time. The Government finally issued G. O. Ms. No. 419, M. A, dated 30. 7. 1998, which comprehensively lays conditions for regularisation of unauthorised constructions. The relevant portions of the said G. O. are as follows: government after taking note of increased unauthorised constructions in urban area, without following the prescribed rules and regulations, took a decision to give one time opportunity to the individuals to come forward and declare voluntarily the unauthorised constructions made by them and to get them regularised by paying the penal amount. Accordingly orders were issued in G. O. 7th read above giving several concessions thereby facilitating the individuals to get the unauthorised constructions made upto 30. 6. 1998 regularised by paying the penal amount prescribed therein. In the meanwhile, Government received representations from various forums requesting for extension of time and reduction of penal amount and simplification of procedure. Government after careful examination of the views expressed during the discussions have decided to substantially simplify the system and reduce the rates for regularisation. xx xx xx government have decided not to extend the time limit fixed earlier in G. O. 6th road above (i. e. , 31. 7. 1998) for regularisation of unauthorised constructions in small plots of upto 200 sq. mts and direct that all the G. Os. hitherto issued in this regard for providing such regularisations shall cease to be in operation after 31. 7. 1998, However, individuals who constructed the buildings unauthorisedly or in deviation of the sanctioned plan can get them regularised duly paying the penal amount and as per procedure prescribed in this order. Government in supersession of all the G. Os issued earlier on the regularisation on unauthorised constructions now issue the following orders: xx xx xx the applicants who filed From-A for regularisation of unauthorised constructions shall file Form-B along with required documents as prescribed in Form-B. Such as building plans, ownership documents, undertakings etc. , on or before 31. 10. 1998. xx xx the Commissioners of Municipal Corporations/municipalities, Vice-Chairman of Urban Development Authorities as the case may be shall dispose of all such applications within a period of four months after collection of balance penaj amount, prescribed fee, charges and development charges, wherever applicable. . . . . xx xxx regularisation of unauthorised constructions/ buildings shall not be considered in the following cases and in cases where public interest and safety are likely to be affected viz. , (a) Government/municipal/local Body s land. (b) Surplus land declared under ULC and Agricultural Land Ceiling Act. (c) Sites affected under the alignment of Master Plan/zonal Development Plan Roads/and other public roads. , (a) Government/municipal/local Body s land. (b) Surplus land declared under ULC and Agricultural Land Ceiling Act. (c) Sites affected under the alignment of Master Plan/zonal Development Plan Roads/and other public roads. XXX XX the Government hereby authorise the Commissioners of all Municipal Corporations/ Municipalities and Vice-Chairman of Urban Development Authorities to regularise unauthorised constructions already made on sites/plots where the title deeds vests with the plot holder in relaxation of Zoning Regulations/multi-storeyed Buildings Regulations/building Rules, on payment of penal amount as prescribed and other usual fees and charges. If the declaration for the regularisation of unauthorised constructions are not filed and the unauthorised constructions are not got regularised within the said stipulated period, or where it is found that the declaration covered unauthorised construction after 30. 6. 1998 action shall be initiated by the Commissioner of Municipal Corporation/municipalities and Vice-Chairman of Urban Development Authorities for demolition/sealing of property/ confiscation. ( 26 ) HOWEVER, to what extent the aforementioned G. O. shall be applicable in relation to the representation of the petitioners must fall for consideration before the appropriate authority. There cannot be any doubt that in terms of the said policy decision or otherwise the object of the Building Rules cannot be defeated. Further, the G. O. categorically prohibits regularisation of unauthorised constructions/buildings in the case of surplus land declared under ULC and Agricultural Land Ceiling Act. Therefore, unless the issue whether the transferors of the petitioners hold excess land under the provisions of the ULC Act or not is decided, the question of considering the cases of the petitioners for regularisation of the constructions, in terms of the aforesaid G . O. , at this stage, does not arise at all. ( 27 ) IT is trite that an irregularity can be regularised, but an illegality cannot be. It is also trite that Master Plans and Zonal Development Plans made in terms of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975, are mandatory in nature and no deviation therefrom is permissible except in accordance with law. ( 28 ) THE question as to whether the structures belonging to the petitioners conform to the mandatory provisions of the A. P. Municipalities Act and the Building Rules made thereunder and thus the same can be regularised in terms of G. O. Ms. No. 419 M. A. , dated 30. 7. ( 28 ) THE question as to whether the structures belonging to the petitioners conform to the mandatory provisions of the A. P. Municipalities Act and the Building Rules made thereunder and thus the same can be regularised in terms of G. O. Ms. No. 419 M. A. , dated 30. 7. 1998 is a matter which must fall for consideration at the first instance before the appropriate authorities. This Court, in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot go into the question as regard authorised or unauthorised nature of the structures made by the petitioners. ( 29 ) FOR the views we have taken, we direct the Special Officer and Competent Authority under the A. P. Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 to determine the issue afresh under Section 8 (4) of the Act pursuant to the remand order dated 14. 11. 1995 passed by the appellate authority in accordance with the provisions of the Act. ( 30 ) INDEPENDENT of the decision to be arrived at by the Special Officer and Competent Authority under the ULC Act, the competent authority of the Municipality may consider whether the structures belonging to the petitioners can be regularised in terms of G. O. Ms. No. 419. However, such decision will be subject to the orders that may be passed ultimately by the authorities under the ULC Act. ( 31 ) BOTH the authorities shall make such consideration as expeditiously as possible, and, in any event, not later than six weeks from the date of communication of this order. ( 32 ) POINT No. 1 is answered accordingly. Point No. 2: ( 33 ) THE contempt petition arises out of an order-dated 24. 2. 1999 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in W. A. Nos. 45 and 217 of 1999 in W. P. Nos. 32774 and 15229 of 1998 respectively. ( 34 ) THE events leading to the passing of the aforementioned order dated 24. 2. 1999 may be noticed. One Chitti Babu and 29 others including the present petitioner in the Contempt Case filed W. P. No. 15229 of 1998 for a direction upon the respondents to regularise the buildings constructed by them as per G. O. Ms. No. 343 M. A. , dated 2. 12. 1997 and G. O. Ms. No. 356 M. A. , dated 17. 12. 1997. No. 343 M. A. , dated 2. 12. 1997 and G. O. Ms. No. 356 M. A. , dated 17. 12. 1997. They also filed W. P. M. P. No. 18200 of 1998 in the said writ petition seeking stay of demolition of the existing buildings. This Court by order dated 28. 5. 1998 granted interim stay of demolition. Subsequently, they also filed another Writ Petition being W. P. No. 32774 of 1998 for issuance of a writ or order in the nature of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in demolishing the buildings of the petitioners on 24. 5. 1998 as illegal and arbitrary and to pay them compensation for the loss sustained by them on account of demolition. An interim order was passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in W. P. M. P. No. 40255 of 3998 on 13. 11. 1998 arising out of WP No. 32774 of 1998 directing the respondents therein not to interfere with the petitioners possession and enjoyment of their respective buildings including repairs, pending further orders. ( 35 ) A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 5th respondent with a petition being W. V. M. P. No. 4249 of 1998 to vacate the interim order dated 13. 11. 1998. By ordcr-daled 30. 12. 1998. a learned Judge of this Court passed the following orders: when the matter is called, the Counsel for the petitioner was not present in the Court. The Counsel for the respondent submits that under the guise of the interim orders passed, the petitioner is going ahead with further construction. Till the matter is disposed of the petitioner is restrained from making any further constructions. If need arises, the police shall extend necessary help to the respondent in implementation of this order. ( 36 ) A similar order was passed by this Court in W. V. M. P. No. 4306 of 1998 in W. P. No. 18200 of 1998 in W. P. No. 15229 of 1998 on 31. 12. 1998. ( 37 ) TWO appeals were preferred thereagainst by the petitioners, which were marked as W. A. Nos. 45 and 217 of 1999 respectively. By order-dated 24. 2. 12. 1998. ( 37 ) TWO appeals were preferred thereagainst by the petitioners, which were marked as W. A. Nos. 45 and 217 of 1999 respectively. By order-dated 24. 2. 1999, a Division Bench of this Court disposed of the appeals in the following terms: learned Counsel for the appellants submits that vide the impugned orders under appeals, the appellants have been restrained from effecting the repairs in their buildings. We find no force in the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants. Reading of the impugned orders make it too obvious that the appellants have only been restrained from undertaking constructions. No injunction orders have been granted for restraining the appellants from effecting the repair works. It is made clear that the appellants cannot undertake constructions under the garb of repairs. No adverse order has been passed against the appellants who sought the only relief that the respondents be restrained from not interfering with the right of repair of the appellants. The learned Counsel for the respondents state that they are not interfering in the right of repairs but under the garb of repair the appellants intend to icconstruct or undeitake the work of construction. Thus, we find no force in the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants that the impugned order stops the appellants from undertaking the repair work though it has been categorically provided that the appellants will not undertake the work of construction. If any orders of this Court are violated, it is open to the appellants to take appropriate remedy. If any authorities are harassing the appellants, they are at liberty to take appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. It is made clear that bo authority would interfere with the right of the appellants to carry out repairs to the buildings. With the above observations, the writ appeals are disposed of. ( 38 ) THE allegations made by the petitioners as regards violation of the stay order had been categorically denied and disputed by the contemnors herein. It was stated that only the constructions, which have been made in violation of the provisions of the Municipalities Act and Building Rules, have been demolished. The grounds urged in various counter-affidavits filed in the writ petitions more or less are to the same effect. It was stated that only the constructions, which have been made in violation of the provisions of the Municipalities Act and Building Rules, have been demolished. The grounds urged in various counter-affidavits filed in the writ petitions more or less are to the same effect. ( 39 ) THE bone of contention of the alleged contemnors will appear from paragraph 5 of the counter-affidavit filed in the contempt case affirmed by Sri B. Venkataiah, Mandal Revenue Officer, Balanagar Mandal, Rangareddy District which is to the following effect: under the guise of carrying out the repairs, when the petitioners tried to make new constructions, the authorities of the Kukatpally Municipality prevented the petitioners from making further constructions. The petitioner tried to create even Law and Order problem when the authorities prevented them from making further constructions. Then the authorities of the Kukatpally Municipality sought assistance from the police for arranging bandobasth, as per the observations of learned single Judge. They also sought for the assistance of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District for maintaining Law and Order. When I visited the site, one of the encroachers i. e. , the owner of a toddy shop one Mr. Naming Rao was constructing a pacca building by the side of the toddy shop. I requested him not to make any constructions on the said land in view of the pendency of the writ petitions before the Hon ble High Court. Thereafter, he stopped further constructions and also removed the constructions already made. It is also noticed that one of the writ petitioners by name P. Vishwarop was trying to make further constructions under the guise of carrying out the repair works. I asked the labour force on the site to make any further constructions in view of the Hon ble High Court orders and the Municipal staff prevented them from making further constructions. It is also noticed that Sri A. S. Reddy, the petitioner herein also tried to make further constructions under the guise of repair works. I requested him not to carry out any construction activity pending further orders of the Hon ble High Court. When he did not care to listen to my request and the requests of the Municipal officials, they prevented him from making further constructions. The allegation in para that on 4. 12. I requested him not to carry out any construction activity pending further orders of the Hon ble High Court. When he did not care to listen to my request and the requests of the Municipal officials, they prevented him from making further constructions. The allegation in para that on 4. 12. 1999 at about II a. m. the respondents 4 and 5 with the assistance of S. I. of Police and several constables came to the premises and started demolishing the building high handedly is absolutely incorrect. The respondents did not demolish any buildings on that day as alleged. I requested the petitioner and his workers not to carry out any further construction activity on the site in question. As is seen from the site, under the guise of carrying out the repair works, the petitioner was trying to make further constructions contrary to the orders of this hon ble High Court. . . . . When 1 insisted the petitioner to stop further construction, he was waiting on the site along with his labourers. After some time the petitioner s advocate came to the site and introduced himself that he is the Counsel appearing for the petitioners. He was repeatedly telling that the petitioners were permitted not only to carry out the repair works but also to reconstruct the demolished structures and was advising the petitioners to ahead with the construction works. I and the Municipal officials made it clear that we will not allow them carrying out any further constructions without further orders of the Hon ble High Court and we were made to wait there for quite some time and left the place. I respectfully submit that I did not cause any loss or damage to the petitioner s property. The averments contra are untrue and are hereby denied. It may here be submitted that after filing the above contempt case, one of the writ petitioners Mr. Narsing Rao again reconstructed a huge structure by the side of the old toddy shop and he is now running the new toddy shop in the newly constructed building. ( 40 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, however, submits that the statements made therein are not correct. The veracity of the claims of the alleged contemnors, contends the learned Counsel, would be apparent from various photographs, which had been produced before this Court. ( 40 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, however, submits that the statements made therein are not correct. The veracity of the claims of the alleged contemnors, contends the learned Counsel, would be apparent from various photographs, which had been produced before this Court. ( 41 ) IN the instant case, the Court is not concerned with the other grievance of the petitioners wherefor an appropriate action can be taken against the concerned authorities before appropriate forums. Such liberty had been granted to the petitioners by Division Bench in its order dated 24. 2. 1999. The Division Bench clearly stated that the petitioners cannot undertake construction under the garb of repairs. ( 42 ) THE respondents, as noticed hereinbefore, have categorically stated that under the garb of effecting repairs, the petitioners herein had undertaken construction works in violation of the provisions of A. P. Municipalities Act. ( 43 ) IT is not possible, having regard to the claims and counter claims made by the parties herein, to arrive at a positive finding that the respondents have wilfully disobeyed the orders of this Court. The question as to whether the petitioners had undertaken the repair works or the original construction work is essentially a question of fact. On the basis of the submissions made in the petitions and the counter-affidavits, this Court is not in a position to arrive at a positive finding that the alleged contemnors have wilfully and/or deliberately flouted the orders of this Court. The purported photographs, which have been placed before us, are not supported by an affidavit as is required in law. ( 44 ) WE arc, therefore, of the opinion that except reiterating the orders passed by this Court in W. P. M. P. No. 4249 of 1998 dated 30. 12. 1998 and the orders passed by the Division Bench in W. A. Nos. 45 and 217 of 1999 on 24. 2. 1999, no further orders can be passed in these proceedings. ( 45 ) HOWEVER, we reiterate that the petitioners shall be at liberty to initiate proceedings against the respondents before the appropriate forums. We, however, direct that till our directions in relation to Point No. 1 are complied with, the parties shall maintain status quo in relation to the constructions in question. ( 46 ) WITH the aforementioned directions, the writ petitions and contempt case are disposed of. We, however, direct that till our directions in relation to Point No. 1 are complied with, the parties shall maintain status quo in relation to the constructions in question. ( 46 ) WITH the aforementioned directions, the writ petitions and contempt case are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.