Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 314 (AP)

Bollini Subramanyam Naidu v. T. Ramachandra Reddy

2022-03-16

R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO

body2022
JUDGMENT R. Raghunandan Rao, J. - The petitioner claiming to be the owner and possessor of ac.10.00 cents of land in Sy.No.414 and ac.4.00 cents of land in Sy.No.417 of Vedallacheruvu village, Yerpedu Mandal, Chittoor District, has approached this Court with the complaint that the respondents sought to lay a road through the land in his possession on the ground that the said land belongs to the 9th respondent-temple. 2. The respondents therein had claimed that the said land belongs to the temple and the petitioner was only a lessee, who is seeking to claim ownership over the said land. 3. This Court by an order dated 28.01.2021 had disposed of the writ petition with the following directions. 'In these circumstances, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner over the land admeasuring ac.10.00 cents of land in Sy.No.414 and ac.4.00 cents of land in Sy.No.417 except in accordance with the procedure established by law and after due notice and opportunity to the petitioner.' 4. The petitioner again approached this court, by way of the present contempt case. The case of the petitioner is that, he sought to replace the torn fencing as cattle were trespassing into the Mango Garden raised by the petitioner in the said land, due to the removal of the fencing wire earlier by the respondents. The petitioner had sought to prevent further damage by raising a ridge by using a JCB. However, respondents 2 to 4 along with the Station House Officer of the Yerpedu Police Station, had intervened and did not permit the petitioner to carry out the repairs. 5. The further complaint of the petitioner is that the respondents are not allowing the petitioner to carry on agricultural operations in the mango garden raised by him in Sy.Nos.414 and 417 of Vedallacheruvu Revenue Village, and are not allowing him to restore the fencing, which was earlier removed illegally by the respondents. The petitioner has moved the present contempt case with the above complaints on 15.04.2021. 6. The 1st respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that the respondents have not intervened with the activities of the petitioner at any stage. However, the respondents had to intervene when the petitioner sought to dig the existing mud road, which goes through Sy.Nos.414 and 417 to the temple. 6. The 1st respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that the respondents have not intervened with the activities of the petitioner at any stage. However, the respondents had to intervene when the petitioner sought to dig the existing mud road, which goes through Sy.Nos.414 and 417 to the temple. It is submitted by the 1st respondent that this road was in use since 1922 by the tribals of the area, at that time, and thereafter by the pilgrims to reach the temple. This road is going through the said land, which according to the 1st respondent, belongs to the temple itself. 7. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed an affidavit stating that the entire controversy arose on account of the respondents seeking to lay a road through the land of the petitioner and that the photographs filed by the petitioner before this Court would be sufficient to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made by the respondents. 8. Sri Chandraiah Naidu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would also rely upon the revenue records of the village. He contends that the statement obtained by the petitioner in relation to the land belonging to the Government in the said village would show that there is no Government land or road going through Sy.Nos.414 and 417 and as such the contention of the respondents that there was a road from 1922 onwards is clearly incorrect. 9. Sri D.V. Sasidhar, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent and Smt. S. Pranathi, learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent would submit that the respondents have not disobeyed the orders of this Court in any manner. They would submit that steps were taken to protect the existing road from being destroyed by the petitioner by taking advantage of the orders of this Court. a lot of material has been placed before this Court by either side, in support of their respective contentions. 10. The order of this Court was to grant an injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the possession of the petitioner over the land in Sy.Nos.414 and 417 except in accordance with law. The petitioner contends that despite this order, the respondents are not permitting him to carry on agricultural activity within the land and are also restraining him from carrying out essential repairs, such as, repairing the fencing which has been removed earlier. The petitioner contends that despite this order, the respondents are not permitting him to carry on agricultural activity within the land and are also restraining him from carrying out essential repairs, such as, repairing the fencing which has been removed earlier. On the other hand, the respondents claim that they have not interfered with any of the activities of the petitioner and they had only taken steps, in accordance with law, to prevent the petitioner from digging the existing road. The photographs placed before this Court would show that the JCB, which is said to have been engaged by the petitioner, is digging up an existing road. The Petitioner, contends that the road has been laid recently, in March 2021 and an inspection of the road would show that it is newly laid. This Court cannot undertake such an exercise, as it would not be possible to verify whether the road has been laid in January,2021 as initially claimed by the petitioner, or subsequently in March 2021. apart from this claim, the petitioner has not placed any material before this court to show any kind of interference by the respondents. 11. The petitioner has not been able to demonstrate any violation of the orders of this Court by any of the respondents. 12. In the circumstances, the contempt case is dismissed. However, it is always open to the petitioner to approach this Court in the event of any future violation of the orders of this Court. There shall be no order as to costs. 13. as a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.