THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY
CONTEMPT CASE No. 1918 OF 2013 Dated:11-07-2014 Between:
Smt. R. Pushpavathi
... PETITIONER
AND
M.V. Suryakala
.. RESPONDENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CONTEMPT CASE No. 1918 OF 2013 ORDER:
This contempt case is filed alleging that the respondents have violated the orders dated 02-04-2012 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1023 of 2008.
The petitioners filed the writ petition assailing the proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) vis-à-vis their property in the city of Hyderabad, for the purpose of widening of the road. The writ petition was allowed and notification dated 03-01-2008 issued under Section 4(1) of the Act as well as the consequential proceedings were set aside. It was left open to the respondents to issue fresh notification, in such a way that the acquisition is equal and equitable on both sides of the road. The petitioners contend that though this Court directed that the acquisition must be equal on both sides, the respondents issued a notification dated 20-09-2013 in the same manner as they did on the earlier occasion. This, according to the petitioners, constitutes contempt of Court.
On behalf of the respondents, a detailed counter affidavit is filed. It is stated that the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued on the basis of the existing necessities and the objections that are filed by the petitioners and other affected parties are under consideration.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition.
It is no doubt true that the notification, dated 20-09-2013, issued under Section 4(1) of the Act, in a way resembles the notification dated 03-01-2008. However, the petitioners cannot be said to have suffered detriment before declaration under Section 6 of the Act is published. The enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act is said to be in progress. Unless the violation of the order is through any declaration under Section 6 of the Act, it cannot be said that the respondents are guilty of contempt of Court.
The contempt case is accordingly closed. The miscellaneous petitions filed in this contempt case shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J
11th July, 2014 ks