Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 366 (AP)

Ketan Garg v. Anumalagundam Narasamma

2025-02-25

MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM, R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO

body2025
Judgment : R. Raghunandan Rao, J. As these two appeals arise out of a common order, they are being disposed of by way of this common order. 2. Heard Sri Kasa Jagan Mohan Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in C.A.No.11 of 2022, Sri V.R.N. Prashanth, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in C.A.No.18 of 2022, and Sri Ch. Srinivas, learned counsel for the contempt petitioner/1 st respondent herein. 3. The petitioner was the owner of a house bearing No.83 in reach No.V (Bus-stand area) at Mangampet Village, Obulavaripally Mandal, YSR Kadapa District. The residents of the village, near the bus stand area, were informed that their houses fall within the danger zone of the Mangampet Barytes project and were instructed to demolish their houses. The petitioner and the other residents of the area were also offered compensation for the land and for the structures demolished under this scheme. 4. The respondent authorities, in W.P.No.17951 of 2019, and the house losers including the petitioner, had various discussions for fixation of compensation, but the compensation could not be fixed in view of some differences on the evaluation of structures in R.R. Centre-II, bus-stand area of Mangampet village. At that stage, the petitioner approached this Court by way of W.P.No.17951 of 2019, contending that the said dispute could be settled by appointment of qualified engineers for assessing the value of the structures in R.R Centre-II part of reach-V of Mangampet Bus-stand area. The petitioner contended that the Managing Director of the A.P. Mineral Development Corporation Limited (APMDCL) had made such a request to the District Collector, who was not acting upon this request. The petitioner sought a direction from this Court to the District Collector for deputing engineers of the R & B Department to assess the value of the structures. 5. This writ petition was disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this Court, by order dated 28.11.2019. The learned Government Pleader for mines, placed on record a letter, dated 07.11.2019, addressed by the Executive Engineer (R & B), A.P.S.H.P Division, Kadapa at Rajampet to the Chief Project Officer, APMDCL, Mangampet, seeking permission for engaging consultancy services at their own cost to prepare structural evaluation, which would be subsequently whetted and authenticated by the R & B Department. The learned Single Judge also noted the fact that such permission was also granted. The learned Single Judge also noted the fact that such permission was also granted. Learned Single Judge also noted that in the permission proceedings, there was a reference about the approval granted by the Joint Collector, Kurnool, on 03.01.2019. The learned Single Judge held that this approval need not be examined as permission had already been granted by the District Collector for engaging consultants for the purpose of evaluation, and disposed of the writ petition with a direction to engage the services of a private structural engineer, not later than a week from the date of the order. 6. The 1 st respondent, subsequently filed C.C.No.633 of 2020, on the ground that the order of the Court, dated 28.11.2019, had not been complied with and the inaction of the respondents, in the contempt case, amounts to willful disobedience of the orders passed by this Court. It was also contended that the appellant in C.A.No.11 of 2022, who was the Sub-Collector of Rajampet, was also guilty of willful disobedience of the orders of the Court, as no steps were taken by the appellant in C.A.No.11 of 2022 despite the 1 st respondent furnishing necessary information to the appellant and calling upon the appellant to take necessary steps for compliance. 7. The complaint against the appellant in C.A.No.18 of 2022 was that he was the Chief Project Officer, APMDCL, who should have taken steps for engaging the services of a private consultant and had not done so despite knowledge of the order of this Court. 8. Both the appellants filed their respective counter affidavits. The appellant in C.A.No.18 of 2022 had addressed a letter, dated 12.11.2019, accepting third party survey, for preparation of estimated cost of structures and was in compliance of the directions of the Court. The appellant in C.A.No.18 of 2022 also submitted that the structures in question were not in existence anymore and the estimates had to be made on the basis of the records and inspection report of the year 2006, which should have been available, in the Revenue Divisional Officer’s office, but could not be traced out. The appellant in C.A.No.18 of 2022 also relied upon a letter, dated 14.12.2020, in which it was stated that the estimate of structures could not be carried out due to non-availability of records in Revenue Divisional Officer’s office. 9. The appellant in C.A.No.18 of 2022 also relied upon a letter, dated 14.12.2020, in which it was stated that the estimate of structures could not be carried out due to non-availability of records in Revenue Divisional Officer’s office. 9. The appellant in C.A.No.11 of 2022 also filed a counter affidavit essentially reiterating the contentions of the appellant in C.A.No.18 of 2022. 10. The attention of the learned Single Judge was also drawn to the physical verification report of the Structures, filed by the Structural Engineer, dated 01.03.2021, in which it was stated that no structure was available in the area under survey and that no records were available regarding these structures, in the Revenue Divisional Officer’s office, due to which no estimated value of the structures could be made. 11. The learned Single Judge refused to accept these explanations on the ground that nothing was placed before the Court to show the details of engagement of services of the private consultant, by name, Sri N. Prasad, and that it was difficult to accept the contention of the appellants that Sri N. Prasad had been engaged, since no details were available. The learned Single Judge took the view that there was clear violation of the directions of the Court and holding that the failure to pay compensation for the structures would amount to violation of the directions of this Court, had held the appellants guilty of contempt of Court and sentenced both the appellants to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- each, failing which, the said amount was to be recovered under the provisions of the A.P. Revenue Recovery Act, 1864. 12. Aggrieved by this order, the appellants have filed the present contempt appeals. 13. The direction of the learned Single Judge, dated 28.01.2019, in W.P.No.17951 of 2019 was to engage the services of the private structural engineer as expeditiously as possible. This direction was given in the light of the consent given by the Chief Project Officer, APMDCL, Mangampet, and the consent given by the Joint Collector. 13. The appellants can be held to be guilty of contempt of Court, if there is no violation of the said directions. Both the appellants have stated that the services of one Sri N. Prasad had been engaged for the purpose of evaluation of the structures. 13. The appellants can be held to be guilty of contempt of Court, if there is no violation of the said directions. Both the appellants have stated that the services of one Sri N. Prasad had been engaged for the purpose of evaluation of the structures. However, such evaluation could not be done as the structures were not in existence anymore and the details of the inspection carried out earlier were not available as the records could not be traced in the office of the Revenue Divisional Officer. 14. In such situation, it cannot be held that there has been violation of the directions of the Court. 15. The learned Single Judge had also taken the view that the averment of the appellants that Sri N. Prasad had been engaged cannot be believed as the details of engagement etc., were not set out before the Court. 16. This Court is unable to subscribe to this view. The fact remains that there is a report by the private consultant Sri N. Prasad, to the effect that evaluation could not be undertaken due to the absence of structures and due to non-availability of records in the office of the Revenue Divisional Officer. This can only pre suppose that Sri n. Prasad was engaged to carry out valuation of the structures. 17. In such circumstances, the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 21.04.2022, in C.C.No.633 of 2020, is set aside and the contempt appeals are allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.