Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 233 (AP)

Raavi Naga Lakshmi v. Kiran Kumar

2023-01-30

BATTU DEVANAND

body2023
JUDGMENT Battu Devanand, J. - This Contempt Case has been filed complaining willful disobedience in implementing the Order dated 20.10.2020 passed by this Court in W.P.No.19133 of 2020. 2. Heard Sri P. Kameshwara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri V. Vinod K. Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent and perused the material available on record. 3. The petitioner filed W.P.No.19133 of 2020 against the action of the respondent herein in issuing notice dated 09.10.2020 and trying to demolish the petitioner house/property vide D.No.2-317 situated at Inkollu Village and Mandal, Prakasam District. 4. This Court disposed of the said W.P.No.19133 of 2020 on 20.10.2020, directing the respondent herein to consider the explanation submitted by the petitioner on 12.10.2020 to the notice issued by them on 09.10.2020 in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order and till such time, all the parties are directed to maintain status quo. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, inspite of specific direction of this Court vide order dated 20.10.2020, the respondent did not consider the explanation dated 12.10.2020 submitted by the petitioner and intentionally took steps for demolition of the property without following due process of law. It is further submitted that, in view of the arbitrary action of the respondent, the petitioner got issued a notice to the respondent on 18.01.2021 through e-mail and registered post. After receipt of the contempt notice, the respondent came to the land of the petitioner along with his men and machinery and highhandedly demolished the structures. 6. Learned counsel submits that the respondent deliberately flouted the orders of this Court. The failure on the part of the respondent in implementing the orders of this Court would amount to disobedience of the orders of this Hon'ble Court, and, therefore, he is liable for punishment under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Complaining the same, the petitioner filed the present Contempt Case. 7. The failure on the part of the respondent in implementing the orders of this Court would amount to disobedience of the orders of this Hon'ble Court, and, therefore, he is liable for punishment under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Complaining the same, the petitioner filed the present Contempt Case. 7. The respondent - Panchayat Secretary filed counter affidavit stating that, aggrieved by the illegal encroachments on public road, a Public Interest Litigation vide W.P.(PIL) No.242 of 2020 was filed and a Division Bench of this Court passed an interim order on 23.09.2020 directing to take immediate measures after noticing such encroachments and take appropriate steps that such encroachments, if any can be removed. 8. The respondent submits that, in terms of order in W.P.(PIL) No.242 of 2020 dated 23.09.2020, the respondent issued a notice to the petitioner on 09.10.2020 and the petitioner submitted his explanation on 12.10.2020. But, without awaiting any order, the petitioner has filed W.P.No.19133 of 2020 which was disposed on 20.10.2020, directing the respondent herein to consider the explanation submitted by the petitioner on 12.10.2020 to the notice issued on 09.10.2020 in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order and till such time, all the parties are directed to maintain status quo. 9. It is further submitted that, the Tahsildar has conducted a survey in terms of the order in W.P.(PIL) No.242 of 2020 dated 23.09.2020 and submitted a report stating that there are about 493 illegal encroachments and as such, the respondent has issued notices to all the illegal encroachers on 28.11.2020 including the petitioner. The petitioner has sent explanation on 28.11.2020 through registered post and the same was received by the respondent on 19.12.2020. Thereafter, having considered the explanation submitted by the petitioner, an order was passed on 08.01.2021 requesting the petitioner to remove the illegal constructions in terms of the order in W.P.(PIL) No.242 of 2020 dated 23.09.2020. 10. The respondent submits that, a contempt case was filed in W.P.(PIL) No.242 of 2020 dated 23.09.2020 and the same is pending adjudication. It is submitted that, when the respondent tried to serve the order dated 08.01.2021, the petitioner refused to receive the same and as such the notice was affixed on the shop of the petitioner. 10. The respondent submits that, a contempt case was filed in W.P.(PIL) No.242 of 2020 dated 23.09.2020 and the same is pending adjudication. It is submitted that, when the respondent tried to serve the order dated 08.01.2021, the petitioner refused to receive the same and as such the notice was affixed on the shop of the petitioner. The petitioner also refused to receive the final notice dated 12.01.2021. Thereafter, the said illegal encroachment was removed on 21.01.2021, as such, there is no willful, intentional, deliberate violation of the order passed by this Court and requested to close the contempt case. 11. Having heard the submissions of the respective counsel and upon perusal of the material available on record, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, without passing any order, as directed by this Court on 20.10.2020, the petitioner was evicted on 21.01.2021 highhandedly. On the other hand, Sri V. Vinod K. Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent contends that, in compliance of the order of this Court, the respondent an made attempt to serve a copy of the order to the petitioner on 08.01.2021, but the petitioner refused to receive the order copy and accordingly, the same was served on the petitioner by way of substitute service by affixing the same at the door of the shop of the petitioner by conducting panchanama. The said contention is denied by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned counsel for the respondent filed a memo along with a copy of the Panchanama dated 08.01.2021. 12. This Court felt that proper enquiry is required to examine panchayatdars and accordingly, directed the learned Junior Civil Judge, Parchur to record evidence of all panhayatdars of the panchanama dated 08.01.2021 and submit report. 13. Accordingly, the evidence of the panchayatdars was recorded by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Parchur and sent to this Court vide letter dated 09.04.2022. On perusal of the same, this Court opined that the relevant information is not recorded and directed the panchayatdars to attend before this Court for examination. 14. On 27.07.2022, the respondent and panchayatdars are examined by this Court. 15. The panchayatdars deposed that the panchanama dated 8.01.2021 was conducted in their presence and deposed that the Panchayat Secretary affixed the speaking order on the wall besides shelter. 16. 14. On 27.07.2022, the respondent and panchayatdars are examined by this Court. 15. The panchayatdars deposed that the panchanama dated 8.01.2021 was conducted in their presence and deposed that the Panchayat Secretary affixed the speaking order on the wall besides shelter. 16. Under these circumstances, it appears that the respondent after serving a copy of the order by way of substitute of service, proceeded to remove the illegal structures made by the petitioner. 17. It is to be noted that earlier, a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 23.09.2020 in W.P (PIL) No.242 of 2020 passed an interim order directing the respondents therein to take immediate measures after noticing such encroachments and take appropriate steps to remove the encroachments. 18. To comply with the directions issued by this Court W.P (PIL) No.242 of 2020, the respondent has initiated proceedings against all the encroachments including the petitioner. Though the petitioner contends that the respondent highhandedly demolished the construction of the petitioner in violation of the directions of this Court, as the petitioner did not prove any title over the land to make constructions therein. 19. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the respondent took steps to remove the encroachments in terms of the order dated 23.09.2020 in W.P (PIL) No.242 of 2020 by following due process of law and as such, he cannot be found guilty of contempt. 20. Accordingly, the contempt case is closed. 21. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall also stand closed.