THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY CONTEMPT CASE No.1216 of 2014 Dated: 12.09.2014 Between:
Pitta Surya Prakash Reddy .. Petitioner and Mr. V. Simhadri Rao, Tahsildar, Gajuwaka Mandal, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam.
.. Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. V.V. Satish Counsel for the Respondent: Spl. G.P. attached to A.G. (A.P.) The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This contempt case is filed alleging willful disobedience of order dated 22.11.2013 in W.P.No.31810 of 2013.
By the above-mentioned order, this Court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner’s application for regularization in terms of G.O.Ms.No.44, Revenue (Assignment-I) Department, dated 11.01.2008, pass appropriate order and communicate the same to the petitioner within a period of three months and that pending such decision, the respondents shall not interfere with the petitioner’s possession of the subject property. In the present contempt case, the petitioner has alleged that in violation of the above-mentioned order, on 04.07.2014 (wrongly mentioned as 04.07.2013), the respondent has got the structure raised by him demolished.
In the counter-affidavit filed by him, the respondent has inter alia stated that through endorsement in Rc.No.401/2014/SA dated 31.07.2014, he has rejected the petitioner’s application for regularization in respect of structure bearing Door No.14-11-24/2, in compliance with the order of this Court. He has further stated that the structure, which was demolished by his staff, is different from the aforementioned structure in respect of which this Court has passed order in W.P.No.31810 of 2013. This averment could not be disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
From the facts pleaded by the respondent, it appears that the petitioner is also in possession of a property other than the property bearing Door No.14-11-24/2. Demolition of the said property, not being the subject matter of W.P.No.31810 of 2013, by the respondent does not constitute contempt.
Hence, the contempt case is dismissed and the respondent is discharged from the contempt proceedings. The petitioner is left free to question the endorsement in Rc.No.401/2014/SA, dated 31.07.2014, issued by the respondent.
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 12th September, 2014 IBL