ORDER : GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J. Heard Sri N. Madhava Rao, learned Counsel for the Petitioners and Sri M. Sudheer, learned Counsel for the sole Respondent/Contemnor. 2. The present Contempt Case is filed by two Writ Petitioners (Writ Petitioner Nos.1 & 4) out of the four Writ Petitioners complaining of violation of the Order of this Court dated 08.03.2018 in W.P.No.7251 of 2018. Factual background 3. Factual background emanating from the Writ Petition as well as present Contempt Case is that the Panchayat Secretary of Brahmadevam Gram Panchayat, Nellore District (Respondent No.5 in the Writ Petition), who has been arrayed as sole Respondent in the present Contempt Case, had issued Proceeding bearing Rc.No./Court Cases/2016 dated 26.02.2018, directing the four Writ Petitioners to remove the alleged encroachments purporting to act as per the Order of this Court dated 05.12.2017 in W.P.No.40019 of 2017; that the Writ Petitioners contended that the Writ Petitioner No.4 had filed O.S.No.383 of 2017 against one Sri M. Chenchaiah before the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nellore seeking Permanent Injunction against the Panchayat Secretary as well as Sri M. Chenchaiah (Respondent Nos.5 & 6 in the Writ Petition); that the Writ Petitioner No.4 had also filed I.A.No.399 of 2017 in O.S.No.383 of 2017, wherein the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nellore was pleased to pass an Interim Order of Status-quo to be maintained on 09.08.2017 and the same was extended from time to time; therefore, the Interim Order of Status-quo in I.A.No.399 of 2017 in O.S.No.383 of 2017 is still subsisting and operating against the Panchayat Secretary (Respondent No.5) and Unofficial Respondent No.6 namely Sri M. Chenchaiah; that the Unofficial Respondent No.6 in the Writ Petition secured an ex-parte Order in W.P.No.40019 of 2017 on 05.12.2017, behind their back without impleading the Writ Petitioners, which is a non-specific direction against the Official Respondents to consider his Representation dated 25.01.2016 within a period of three months; that the said Representation submitted by the Unofficial Respondent No.6 (Sri Chenchaiah) is for removal of encroachments in the Panchayat land in R.S.No.665; and that the Official Respondent No.5 had colluded with Unofficial Respondent No.6 and got issued the Proceeding on 26.02.2018 for evicting the Writ Petitioners herein, which is the subject matter of challenge in W.P.No.7251 of 2018. 4. 4. The facts on record would further indicate that the above averments were specifically pleaded by the Writ Petitioners in Para Nos.5 & 6 of the Affidavit filed in support of Writ Petition in W.P.No.7251 of 2018, which are usefully extracted hereunder: "5. I further submit that, the 6 th respondent herein is a retired Deputy Executive Engineer in Irrigation department in Nellore District, and he is a native of our Village and he and his wife namely Sankaramma have land behind our Houses, nearly Ac.1-75 cents and he wants to convert the same into house sites. There is passage in between the houses of 3 rd and 4 th petitioners, in a width of 6 feet, which is being used by 6 th respondent, since long time as a ingress and egress. With a view to convent his agricultural land into house sites, the 6 th respondent asked the petitioners 3 and 4 to leave 1 Ankanam each by removing part of their houses for widening the existing passage and for which he offered Rs.50,000/- each. I further submit that, the petitioners 3 and 4 rejected the offer made by the 6 th respondent. Thereafter the 6 th respondent also approached me and the 2 nd petitioner to give some site for formation of direct passage by removing some part of our houses, for which he offered to give his proposed converted land to us, for which we also rejected. Due to the above said reason the 6 th respondent, bore grudge against us and filed the above writ petition. We were not party respondents to the above said writ petition and no opportunity was given to us and no survey was conducted by any authority so far. Our houses situated in patta land only and we never encroached into any Gramapanchayat Land and the same can be established if detailed survey is conducted. 6. I further submit that, it is relevant to state that, the 4 th petitioner herein filed a suit O.S.No. 383 of 2017, on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nellore, seeking a permanent injunction against 5 th and 6 th respondents herein and in which she also filed an Interlocutory Application seeking temporary Injunction in I.A.No.399 of 2017 in O.S.No.383 of 2017. The Hon'ble Court was pleased to pass an order of Status Quo to be maintained on 09-08-2017 and the same is extended from time to time and is pending before the Hon'ble Court. I further submit that, the 6 th respondent herein having failed to resist the claim in the said suit, colluded with the 5 th respondent and filed the said W.P.No.40019/2017 before this Hon'ble Court and misled this Hon'ble Court by making false representations about conducting of survey, without conducting any survey through the Standing Counsel as if survey was already conducted. In fact no survey was conducted and no notice for conducting survey was issued to us so far. Thus the sald writ petition was got disposed of at the admission stage without filing any counter and without impleading us as party respondents. I further submit that, this Hon'ble Court directed the respondents to consider the representations of the 6 th respondent only within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. There is no positive direction issued by this Hon'ble Court to remove the alleged encroachments. But, surprisingly in the impugned notice, there is no reference to the alleged representations of the 6 th respondent, however the same proceeds on the footing that this Hon'ble Court directed for removal of the encroachments and that they are Implementing the order of this Hon'ble Court. All this mischivous attitude of the 5 th respondent itself demonstrates the malafide and collusive nature resulting in issuance of the Impugned notice. Though, the impugned notice is termed as notice, this is an order directing us to remove the alleged encroachments without even specifying the exact portion of the encroachment. I further submit that, the conclusion arrived at by the 5 th respondent holding that the petitioners have encroached on to the road area is laconic and arbitrary. Unless the petitioners are put on notice before conducting any such survey, the same is not binding on the petitioners.” 5. The above extract would indicate that there was pre-existing animosity between the Unofficial Respondent No.6 and the Writ Petitioners herein that led to filing of a suit and that the Panchayat Secretary (Respondent No.5) purporting to implement the Order passed by this Court on 05.12.2017 in W.P.No.40019 of 2017 (filed by Sri M. Chenchaiah, Unofficial Respondent No.6) maliciously administered and caused the demolition. The Writ Petitioners also submitted that the Panchayat Secretary did not get the land surveyed before issuing the impugned Proceeding dated 26.02.2018. 6. Having taken note of all these aspects, Learned Single Judge of this Court had passed the following Order on 08.03.2018 in W.P.No.7251 of 2018: “ 3. The direction of this court was to consider the representation and to pass orders. There was no positive direction to remove encroachments. If the Gram Panchayat believed petitioners herein are in encroachment of public road, elementary principle required is they should be put on notice by placing on record the relevant documents, by which such tentative decision is arrived, call for explanation and on considering the explanation to pass order. On the contrary, straight way order was passed directing to remove the encroachments as if a decision was already taken holding them encroaching public road. Learned counsel for respondents do not dispute that petitioner was not put on notice and was not afforded opportunity before passing impugned order. 4. Thus, this infirmity goes to the root, impugned order is not sustainable and is accordingly set aside. Writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. The order(termed as notice) dated 26-022018 shall be treated as show cause notice. The learned Standing Counsel also undertakes to instruct his client to furnish a copy of the survey report to the petitioners within three (3) days from today. The petitioners shall file their explanation within two (2) weeks from the date of furnishing survey report. 5. On considering the explanation, appropriate orders shall be passed by the Gram Panchayat. Until decision is taken and communicated to the petitioners, the 5th respondent- Gram Panchayat shall maintain status quo obtaining as on today.” 7. The above extract of the Order dated 08.03.2018 would indicate that the Learned Single Judge of this Court had treated the impugned Proceeding of eviction dated 26.02.2018 as Show Cause Notice. The above extract would also indicate that the Learned Single Judge has recorded the undertaking given by the learned Standing Counsel for Panchayat that he would inform the Panchayat Secretary to supply a copy of the Survey Report to the Writ Petitioners within three days from the date of the Order. The above extract would also indicate that the Learned Single Judge has recorded the undertaking given by the learned Standing Counsel for Panchayat that he would inform the Panchayat Secretary to supply a copy of the Survey Report to the Writ Petitioners within three days from the date of the Order. The Learned Single Judge further directed that upon furnishing the Survey Report, the Writ Petitioners shall file their explanation within two weeks thereafter and only upon considering the said explanation, appropriate Orders shall be passed by the Gram Pancahyat and be communicated to the Writ Petitioners before initiating any adverse action. It was further directed that until decision is taken and communicated to the Writ Petitioners, the Respondent No.5 – Gram Panchayat shall maintain Status quo obtaining as on the said date i.e. 08.03.2018. 8. In the present Contempt Case, the Writ Petitioner Nos.1 & 4 would contend that without following any of these directions given by the Learned Single Judge, on 19.03.2018 at about 3.00 P.M, the Panchayat Secretary with the help of police have come and demolished the houses of all the Writ Petitioners. 9. Although it was undertaken by the learned Standing Counsel for the Panchayat that he would inform the Gram Panchayat about the directions given by this Court, the Writ Petitioners have also additionally informed the Panchayat Secretary about the Order passed by this Court on 26.02.2018, when the Panchayat Secretary approached the Writ Petitioners and supplied a copy of the Survey Report on 12.03.2018. It is further stated that the Writ Petitioners were surprised to see the Survey Report, since the same was prepared without actually conducting survey. In any case, from the date of supplying the Survey Report i.e., on 12.03.2018, the two weeks time was available for the Writ Petitioners to submit their explanation and thereafter the Respondents shall take a decision and then initiate action. Whereas, without waiting for two weeks period, demolition was done at 3.00 P.M on 19.03.2018, without any Advance Notice. The photographs at Page No.18 to 20 and the news reports filed in this Contempt Case would clearly indicate that the demolition was done on 19.03.2018 in a high-handed manner and without complying with any of the directions given by this Court on 08.03.2018. The photographs at Page No.18 to 20 and the news reports filed in this Contempt Case would clearly indicate that the demolition was done on 19.03.2018 in a high-handed manner and without complying with any of the directions given by this Court on 08.03.2018. The high-handed action by the sole Respondent herein is not only in violation of the Order of this Court dated 08.03.2018 but it is also in violation of the Status Quo Order passed by the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) dated 09.08.2017 in I.A.No.399/2017 in O.S.No.383 of 2017. 10. The present Contempt Case is filed against the Panchayat Secretary by name Sri V. Seenaiah, who was there not only at the helm of affairs during the issuance of the impugned Proceeding dated 26.02.2018 but also upto the date of demolition on 19.03.2018. In fact, he is the one who had asked for Police protection. In the Counter Affidavit, the sole Respondent has taken a plea that the Writ Petitioners have submitted an undertaking on 08.03.2018 that they would themselves remove the encroachments, and therefore, the demolition was done basing on such undertaking given by the Writ Petitioners. The Respondent has also taken another defence that his Counsel had not informed him and had not supplied to him with the copy of the Order (in Para No.5 of the Counter Affidavit dated 01.08.2018). The sole Respondent has also filed the Additional Counter-Affidavit on 06.09.2025 raising another plea that the said Respondent had passed an Order of eviction on 08.03.2018 itself and had duly communicated to the Writ Petitioners and in turn the Writ Petitioners have submitted an undertaking by way of response on 08.03.2018 that the Writ Petitioners would themselves remove the encroachments before 15.08.2018. Analysis : 11. Although neither the Writ Petitioners nor the sole Respondent had placed on record a copy of the Order dated 05.12.2017 in W.P.No.40019 of 2017, this Court took the trouble of downloading the said Order. The said Order would indicate that the Writ Petitioners herein who are the alleged encroachers, were not arrayed as Respondents in the said Writ Petition. The Unofficial Respondent No.6 in W.P.No.7251 of 2018 procured an ex-parte Order behind the back of the Writ Petitioners. The said Order would indicate that the Writ Petitioners herein who are the alleged encroachers, were not arrayed as Respondents in the said Writ Petition. The Unofficial Respondent No.6 in W.P.No.7251 of 2018 procured an ex-parte Order behind the back of the Writ Petitioners. The said Order dated 05.12.2017 does not indicate that the Unofficial Respondent No.6 (the Writ Petitioner in W.P.No.40019 of 2017) had brought it to the notice of the Court that there is an Interim Injunction operating against him and the Panchayat Secretary in I.A.No.339 of 2017 in O.S.No.383 of 2017 passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nellore. In fact, the Contemnor/ Respondent herein was also arrayed as a Defendant in the Suit and therefore, it is deemed that he had full knowledge of the Interim Order. The Respondent did not deny the fact that a fresh survey was never conducted. The Respondent merely supplied an excuse showing that the Tahsildar had declined the survey because the survey was already done earlier, which fact was always disputed by the Writ Petitioners. In any case, the Order passed by the Learned Single Judge dated 08.03.2018 would clearly indicate that the appearance of Respondent No.5 through the Standing Counsel by one Sri G. Seshadri is mentioned in the operative portion of Para No.4 of the Order and it would indicate that the Standing Counsel, had in fact, undertook to inform the Respondent No.5 about the directions given by the Court. The averments in the Counter-Affidavit of the sole Respondent would clinchingly prove that the Respondent was in constant touch with his Counsel during the Writ Proceedings and subsequently too. 12. The facts would also indicate that from the date of supply of Survey Report, the Writ Petitioners were given two weeks time for submission of explanation and the Respondents were to consider the explanation and take a decision and also communicate it to the Writ Petitioners before effecting demolition. 13. 12. The facts would also indicate that from the date of supply of Survey Report, the Writ Petitioners were given two weeks time for submission of explanation and the Respondents were to consider the explanation and take a decision and also communicate it to the Writ Petitioners before effecting demolition. 13. The plea taken by the Respondent in his Additional Counter-Affidavit dated 06.09.2025 (in Para-4) that the Writ Petitioners, on the same date i.e., on 08.03.2018, had submitted an undertaking/explanation that they would voluntarily demolish on or before 15.03.2018 in Reply to the demolition notice given by the Respondent on the same day i.e., on 08.03.2018, cannot be believed by this Court, inasmuch as the Writ Petitioners would not have voluntarily given undertaking of this nature after this Court had given them the protection while the Proceedings were pending before the Court on 08.03.2018. At the ground level, the Respondent may have obtained such undertaking but the same cannot be treated as valid in view of the clear order of this Court dated 08.03.2018. A copy of the said undertaking/Letter is filed by the Respondent along with the Memo on 06.09.2025. The said Letter submitted by the Writ Petitioners, though is signed by the Writ Petitioners, seems to be in different handwriting. In any case, even if this Letter was submitted, this Court would deem it that such Letter would have been submitted by the Writ Petitioners on 08.03.2018 during the course of the day sometime before this Court had issued the directions. Therefore, this Letter cannot be treated as having any validity. In any case, once various directions are given by this Court, the Respondent cannot take law into his hands unilaterally without seeking permission of the Court to proceed with the demolition basing on the undertaking given by the Writ Petitioners and for this purpose, the Official Respondents in the Writ Petition ought to have approached and sought for permission in W.P.No.7251 of 2018. Once the Respondent No.5 is represented through the Counsel, he is estopped from raising the plea that his Counsel has not communicated a copy of this Order, and out of ignorance, the Respondent had organized the demolition. The defence taken by the Respondent that he Writ Petitioners have voluntarily undertaken to demolish their structures is also rejected for the reasons aforesaid. 14. The defence taken by the Respondent that he Writ Petitioners have voluntarily undertaken to demolish their structures is also rejected for the reasons aforesaid. 14. In the above premise, this Court has come to a conclusion that the Respondent herein is guilty of Contempt of this Court for the following reasons: i. That the Contemnor/Respondent, who is arrayed as one of the Defendant in O.S.No.383 of 2017 is bound by the Interim Order passed in I.A.No.339 of 2017 in O.S.No.383 of 2017, which Order was subsisting on the said date. ii. That the Unofficial Respondent No.6 in the Writ Petition by name Sri M. Chenchaiah had also suppressed the factum of pedency of the Suit for Permanent Injunction bearing O.S.No.383 of 2017 and also the factum of subsistence of Interim Order in I.A.No.339 of 2017 in O.S.No.383 of 2017 and obtained an innocuous Order to consider the Representation without impleading the Writ Petitioners. iii. The sole Respondent/Contemnor had made a futile effort before this Court in the present Contempt Proceeding to raise several inconsistent and unfounded pleas with a view to mislead this Court by showing wrong dates instead of being apologetic and showing an element of remorse. iv. The sole Respondent herein had furnished the Survey Report to the Writ Petitioners without getting the Survey conducted. In any case, such Survey Report is supplied on 15.03.2018 and without waiting for a period of two weeks two enable the Writ Petitioners to submit their Explanation, he had addressed a Letter to the Police for providing police protection and got the properties of the Petitioners and demolished in a highhanded manner on 19.03.2018 itself. v. There is deliberate suppression of material facts with regard to the subsisting Status quo order passed by the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nellore dated 09.08.2017 in I.A.No.399 of 2017 in O.S.No.383 of 2017 inasmuch as the Respondent herein was arrayed as a Defendant. Collusion between the Panchayat Secretary (Respondent No.5) and the Unofficial Respondent No.6 in the Writ Petition is also evident from the fact that the impugned Notice issued by the sole Respondent herein on 26.02.2018 did not specifically indicate the Writ Petition number or about the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.40019 of 2017 dated 05.12.2017 which is filed by Sri M. Chandraiah. 15. 15. While holding the Contemnor/Respondent guilty of Contempt, it would be the duty of the Court to ensure that the victim who suffered the loss shall be restituted and if the same is not done, mere Order of punishment would be of no avail for victim who suffered with the act of high-handedness of the Contemnor/Respondent. This view of the Court is fortified by the two decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court, which are discussed hereunder: a) In Amit Kumar Das, Joint Secretary, Baitanik, A Registered Society Vs. Shrimati Hutheesingh Tagore Charitable Trust : (2024) 11 SCC 679 . In Para Nos.15 to 17, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under : “15. However, in Mazdoor Sangh v. Baranagore Jute Factory Plc. [Mazdoor Sangh v. Baranagore Jute Factory Plc., (2017) 5 SCC 506 : (2017) 3 SCC (Civ) 35 : (2017) 2 SCC (L&S) 19] , considering the aforestated precedent, a two-Judge Bench of this Court noted that the three-Judge Bench had clarified therein that directions which are explicit in the judgment or “are plainly self- evident” can be taken into account for the purpose of considering whether there is any disobedience or wilful violation. The Bench further held that the Court has a duty to issue appropriate directions for remedying or rectifying the things done in violation of the Court order and in that regard, the Court may even take restitutive measures at any stage of the proceedings. 16. Significantly, the two-Judge Bench had merely echoed the affirmation of the legal position by another two-Judge Bench of this Court in DDA v. Skipper Construction Co. (P) Ltd. [DDA v. Skipper Construction Co. (P) Ltd., (1996) 4 SCC 622 ] The principle that a contemnor ought not to be permitted to enjoy and/or keep the fruits of his contempt was reiterated therein. Reference was made by the Bench to Mohd. Idris v. Rustam Jehangir Babuji [Mohd. Idris v. Rustam Jehangir Babuji, (1984) 4 SCC 216 : 1984 SCC (Cri) 587] , wherein it was held that undergoing punishment for contempt would not mean that the Court is not entitled to give appropriate directions for remedying and rectifying the things done in violation of its orders. 17. Idris v. Rustam Jehangir Babuji [Mohd. Idris v. Rustam Jehangir Babuji, (1984) 4 SCC 216 : 1984 SCC (Cri) 587] , wherein it was held that undergoing punishment for contempt would not mean that the Court is not entitled to give appropriate directions for remedying and rectifying the things done in violation of its orders. 17. Therefore, the principle that stands crystallised by these judgments is that, in addition to punishing a contemnor for disobeying its orders, the Court can also ensure that such a contemnor does not continue to enjoy the benefits of his disobedience by merely suffering the punishment meted out to him.” b). In State Bank of India and Others Vs. Dr. Vijay Mallya : (2024) 12 SCC 85 . In Para Nos.16 & 17, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under: “16. In the circumstances, in order to maintain the majesty of law, we must impose adequate punishment upon the contemnor and must also pass necessary directions so that the advantages secured by the contemnor or anyone claiming under him are set at naught and the amounts in question are available in execution of the decrees passed in the recovery proceedings concerned. 17. Considering the facts and circumstances on record and the facts that the contemnor never showed any remorse nor tendered any apology for his conduct, we impose sentence of four months and fine in the sum of Rs 2000 (Rupees two thousand only) upon the contemnor. The fine shall be deposited in the Registry of this Court within four weeks and upon such deposit, the amount shall be made over to the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. In case the amount of fine is not deposited within the time stipulated, the contemnor shall undergo further sentence of two months.” 16. In the above premise, the Contemnor/Respondent is held guilty and convicted for the Contempt of Court, and therefore, shall suffer civil imprisonment for a period of two months. The Contemnor/Respondent shall also restitute the loss suffered by the Writ Petitioners herein (Writ Petitioner Nos.1 & 4) by effecting reconstruction to bring the property to status-quo ante. In the event of failure on the part of Contemnor/Respondent in effecting the restitution within a period of three months, the Contemnor/Respondent shall suffer further civil imprisonment for a period of four months. In the event of failure on the part of Contemnor/Respondent in effecting the restitution within a period of three months, the Contemnor/Respondent shall suffer further civil imprisonment for a period of four months. The Contemnor/ Respondent is directed to pay Costs of Rs.10,000/- to each of the Writ Petitioners herein within a period of two weeks from the date of uploading of this Order on the Web-site of this Court. At this stage, the learned Counsel appearing for Contemnor/Respondent had requested the Court to suspend this Order for some time. On such request, the present Order is suspended for a period of two weeks from the date of uploading of this Order on the Web-site of this Court. Accordingly, this Contempt Case is allowed. 17. The Registrar (Judicial) is directed to forthwith communicate a copy of this Order to the following Authorities for effective compliance. (1) The Commissioner, Panchayat & Rural Development, Charitasri Hospital Building, Suryaraopet, Vijayawada. (2) The District Panchayat Officer, S.P.S.R.Nellore District, Nellore. (3) The Divisional Panchayat Officer, S.P.S.R Nellore District, Nellore. (4) The Director General of Police (Police Force), Andhra Pradesh. (5) The local Superintendent of Police (in whichever District the Contemnor is presently posted/working) (6) The local Station House Officer. 18. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order.