ORDER R. Raghunandan Rao, J. - Heard Sri K.S. Murthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri N. Ashwani Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B. Seshibhushan Rao, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The facts of the case according to the petitioner are as follows: (a) The petitioner is the owner of 23,415 sq.feet and 960 sq.yards of land, which are contiguous to each other, in Sy.No.4069/3B Peddakapu Street, Ward No.13, Tirupati Municipality. The petitioner had constructed a theatre complex called M/s. Pratap Group Theaters, consisting of six theaters in two blocks, in this land. This property is bounded by two roads on the northern and western sides of the said plot. The northern road is called Jayasyam Road and the western road is called Gangamma Temple Road. (b) On 02.03.2022, the Municipal Corporation, Tirupathi issued a notice to the petitioner stating that the Jayasyam Road is proposed to be widened to 60 ft and sought the consent of the petitioner for acceptance of TDRs, instead of cash compensation for the affected part of the petitioner's property. (c) The petitioner being aggrieved by this proposal, had moved this Court, by way of W.P.No.7397 of 2022 and the same came to be disposed of on 28.03.2022 in the following terms: 'In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the submissions of both the learned counsel, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition, by setting aside the notices vide Roc No.2441/2020/G, dated 23.09.2020 and Roc No.1833/2018/G1, dated 02.03.2022 and directing the respondent authorities to issue fresh notice in accordance with law. Till such time, the respondent authorities are directed not to take any coercive steps with regard to the subject property'. (d) The respondents, without issuing any notice, contemplated under the above order, demolished the footpath of a certain part of the compound wall of the petitioner on 03.02.2023. Till such time, the respondent authorities are directed not to take any coercive steps with regard to the subject property'. (d) The respondents, without issuing any notice, contemplated under the above order, demolished the footpath of a certain part of the compound wall of the petitioner on 03.02.2023. (e) The petitioner apprehending further demolition and forcible taking over of possession, approached this Court, by way of W.P. No. 3256 of 2023, which was disposed of on 14.02.2023, with the following directions 'Therefore, recording the aforesaid submission made by the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2, on written instructions, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents 2 and 3 to follow due process of law in acquiring the property of the petitioner for public purpose of widening the road if all the said property is required for the said purpose. If the offer made by the 2nd respondent for allotment of TDR is not acceptable to the petitioner and if he does not give consent to accept the same, then the procedure contemplated under Section 147 of the Act to pay compensation is to be followed by the 2nd respondent. Till the said property is acquired by following due process of law, as directed supra, the respondents shall not demolish the said property of the petitioner or to dispossess him from the said property'. (f) After these orders had been passed by this Court, the respondents 1 and 2, on 22.04.2023, sent their men and machinery to demolish the wall of the petitioner without initiating any of the action required under the above directions. The Managing Partner of the petitioner/deponent of the affidavit filed in support of the contempt case, rushed to the office of the 1st respondent, on 22.04.2023, along with the copy of the order of this Court dated 14.02.2023 in W.P.No. 3256 of 2023 and requested the respondents not to demolish the wall of the petitioner. However, the 1st respondent refused to entertain the request of the petitioner and did not even allow the petitioner to make out his case. On the next day, i.e., 23.04.2023, which is a Sunday, the respondents 1 and 2 carried out demolition of the entire compound wall of the petitioner despite protest by the Managing Partner of the petitioner. 3. However, the 1st respondent refused to entertain the request of the petitioner and did not even allow the petitioner to make out his case. On the next day, i.e., 23.04.2023, which is a Sunday, the respondents 1 and 2 carried out demolition of the entire compound wall of the petitioner despite protest by the Managing Partner of the petitioner. 3. Sri K.S. Murthy, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondents 1 and 2 being fully aware of the directions of this Court, both in the orders dated 28.03.2022 in W.P.No. 7397 of 2022 and the orders dated 14.02.2023 in W.P.No. 3256 of 2023, had blatantly violated the orders of the Court. He would submit that this was a deliberate violation of the orders of the Court as respondents 1 and 2 were fully aware of the directions of this Court and had still persisted in demolishing the compound wall of the petitioner. He would further submit that there are no extenuating circumstances for any concession to be given to the respondents 1 and 2 in the matter. 4. Sri K.S. Murthy, the learned Senior Counsel would also draw the attention of this Court to the Judgment of the full bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in 3 ACES, Hyderabad vs. Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, 1994 (3) ALT 73 wherein the full bench had directed that no demolition would be carried out on a Sunday unless there were extraordinary circumstances for such demolition. 5. The respondents did not appear before this Court despite notices being received by them. In view of their refusal to appear before this Court, bailable warrants were issued, for production of respondents 1 and 2, on 23.11.2023. On 23.12.2023, both the respondents were present and the respondents were directed to produce the file relating to the demolition of the compound wall as well as the record showing when the order of this Court had been received in the office of the respondents. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed separate counter affidavits signed on 14.12.2023. Both these counter affidavits contain the same averments. On 11.01.2024, the 1st respondent filed an additional affidavit. 6. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed separate counter affidavits signed on 14.12.2023. Both these counter affidavits contain the same averments. On 11.01.2024, the 1st respondent filed an additional affidavit. 6. In the first counter affidavit, dated 14.12.2023, the respondents do not deny the averment of the petitioner that the Managing Partner of the petitioner had approached the respondents on 22.04.2023 and that the respondents had rejected the request of the petitioner. The additional affidavit also does not deny these averments. However, a statement is made that the order of this Court dated 14.12.2023 was received on 01.07.2023. 7. On the question of demolition of the compound wall of the petitioner, the respondents state, in their first counter affidavit, dated 14.12.2023, that the footpath adjoining the compound wall of the petitioner had been demolished on 03.02.2023 and that there was a subsequent removal of footpath and compound wall again on 23.04.2023. The respondents state that they have not touched the site of the petitioner except the compound wall which was erected on the municipal site. 8. The respondents would also contend that they had issued a notice on 26.02.2023 informing the petitioner that the Jayasyam Road would be widened for public purpose and sought consent for issuance of TDR in relation to the property that would be affected in the road widening and subsequent steps were taken only after the issuance of this notice. 9. The 1st respondent would also contend that the widening of the Jayasyam Road had not been taken up till date and it was the petitioner itself who had removed the compound wall on the western side, i.e., Gangamma Temple Road for his own purposes and as such, there is no violation of the orders of this Court. In the course of argument, Sri B. Seshibhushan Rao, the learned counsel for the respondents would also submit that the compound wall of the petitioner on the Jayasyam Road was not demolished and it was the wall of the Gangamma Temple Road which was demolished. He would further submit that the directions of this Court had stayed the demolition of the wall of the petitioner on the Jayasyam Road and there was no direction regarding the demolition of the compound wall of the petitioner on the Gangamma Temple Road. Consideration of the Court: 10. He would further submit that the directions of this Court had stayed the demolition of the wall of the petitioner on the Jayasyam Road and there was no direction regarding the demolition of the compound wall of the petitioner on the Gangamma Temple Road. Consideration of the Court: 10. It is an admitted fact that the respondents had carried out demolition of the compound wall of the petitioner on two occasions i.e., on 03.02.2023 and 23.04.2023. The averment of the petitioner that, the Managing Partner of the petitioner had approached the respondents, on 22.04.2023, with a copy of the order of this Court dated 14.02.2023 and the same had been ignored, has not been denied by the respondents. In fact there is no averment about this incident by the respondents. In such circumstances, the statement of the petitioner being uncontroverted, has to be accepted. 11. The respondents contend that the order of the Court prohibited the respondents from touching the compound wall of the petitioner only on the Jayasyam Road and the compound wall of the petitioner on the Gangamma Temple Road is not the subject matter of the order of this Court dated 14.02.2023. 12. The respondents 1 and 2 also admit that in the process of demolition of the footpath and compound wall of the petitioner, on 23.04.2023, they had demolished a very small part of the compound wall of the petitioner on the Jayasyam Road. The photographs produced by both sides also show that a small part of the compound wall of the petitioner on the Jayasyam Road had been demolished. This demolition is explained away by the respondents, by stating that the demolition was carried out on account of encroachment by the petitioner and not for the purpose of road widening. 13. The respondents also take the stand that it was the petitioner itself which demolished a part of the road and is now seeking to make a complaint against the respondents. It is not clear how such a pleading can be maintained by the respondents. It is too farfetched for a private party to demolish its own wall and then come and complain against the respondents about the violation of the directions of this Court. This Court is not willing to accept such a statement and the same is rejected. 14. It is not clear how such a pleading can be maintained by the respondents. It is too farfetched for a private party to demolish its own wall and then come and complain against the respondents about the violation of the directions of this Court. This Court is not willing to accept such a statement and the same is rejected. 14. As far as scope of the order of the Court is concerned, the order dated 14.02.2023 protects the compound wall of the petitioner on the Jayasyam Road and not on the Gangamma Temple Road. 15. However, two issues still remained to be answered. The first issue that arises is whether the wall on the Gangamma Temple Road could have been demolished by the respondents on 23.04.2023. The cause for such demolition is said to be the encroachment of public road by the petitioner. It is strange that the respondents suddenly awake to the fact that the petitioner has encroached on municipal land and undertake demolition of the compound wall of the petitioner, at about the time when there is an order of this court staying any demolition of the wall of the petitioner on the other side of the property. In such circumstances, there would have to be prior notices calling upon the petitioner to show cause why the wall should not be demolished and the encroached area should not be recovered by the Municipal Corporation. There is no whisper about the issuance of such notices to the petitioner before the demolition had been carried out on 23.04.2023. This clearly shows that this plea is an afterthought. 16. The second issue is the demolition of a small portion of the compound wall of the petitioner on the Jayasyam Road. The respondents being fully aware of the directions of this Court persisted in demolition of the wall of the petitioner on the Jayasyam Road under the guise of removal of encroachment. The fact that no proper notice for removal of such encroachment is placed before this Court clearly shows that there were malafides in the action of the respondents. 17. The respondents being fully aware of the directions of this Court persisted in demolition of the wall of the petitioner on the Jayasyam Road under the guise of removal of encroachment. The fact that no proper notice for removal of such encroachment is placed before this Court clearly shows that there were malafides in the action of the respondents. 17. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court holds that the demolition of the small portion of the compound wall of the petitioner on the Jayasyam Road amounts to violation of directions of this Court and consequently, respondents 1 and 2 have violated the directions of this Court dated 14.02.2023 and have committed contempt of this Court. 18. In view of the fact that only a very small portion of the compound wall of the petitioner was demolished, this Court is inclined to be lenient and is not sentencing the respondents to imprisonment. However, such actions of public authorities in defiance of the directions of this Court cannot go unpunished. 19. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is allowed and both the respondents 1 and 2 shall pay the fine amount of Rs. 2,000/-, which is the maximum permissible fine available under the Contempt of Courts Act. The said fine shall be deposited with the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court within one week from today, failing which, the defaulting respondents shall suffer simple imprisonment of one week. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.