HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CONTEMPT CASE No.2286 of 2013 Date:20.01.2014 Between:
Raamineni Sambasiva Naidu, S/o Narayanaswamy . Petitioner And:
The Gram Panchayat, Thimminaidupalem, reptd by its Panchayat Secretary-Smt Moti and three others.
. Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri C.M.R.Velu Counsel for Respondent No.2: Sri G.Ramachandra Reddy Standing Counsel for TUDA The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This Contempt Case is filed alleging wilful disobedience of order, dated 04.04.2013, in WPMP.No.12609 of 2013 in Writ Petition No.10142 of 2013.
This Court by the above-mentioned order has directed the Gram Panchayat, Thimminaidupalem to ensure that respondent Nos.3 and 4 therein shall not make further construction over the land in Survey No.56/1 of Gollavanigunta Village, Akkarampalli Group, Tirupati Urban Mandal, Chittoor District, without a sanctioned plan.
When the petitioner has issued a notice on 10.04.2013 to the Panchayat Secretary of Akkarampalli Gram Panchayat stating that despite the restraint order of this Court, respondent Nos.3 and 4 have been proceeding with the construction, a reply was issued on the same day by the Panchayat Secretary, wherein it has been stated that a notice was served on respondent No.4 on 30.03.2013, directing her to stop further construction, failing which, action will be taken under the relevant Rules and that in pursuance of the said notice, respondent No.4 has filed a written explanation stating that the construction over the disputed site was stopped and that she will proceed with the work only after taking due permission from the Tirupati Urban Development Authority and the Gram Panchayat. Accordingly, the Panchayat Secretary has informed the petitioner that the order, dated 04.04.2013, of this Court has been strictly implemented. The petitioner has not approached the Panchayat Secretary after receipt of the said reply, dated 10.04.2013. However, nearly ten months after the receipt of the said reply, the petitioner filed this Contempt Case with the allegation that respondent Nos.3 and 4 have completed the construction over the above-mentioned survey number.
Before filing this Contempt Case, the petitioner did not issue any notice either to the Panchayat Secretary or respondent Nos.3 and 4 alleging that they have been proceeding with the construction in violation of the order of this Court. If the contents of the reply, dated 10.04.2013, issued by the Panchayat Secretary were incorrect, the petitioner ought to have immediately filed a Contempt Case. Having allowed substantial time to pass- by and the construction to be completed, the petitioner cannot maintain this Contempt Case. Further more, the above-mentioned interim order passed by this Court only restrained respondent Nos.3 and 4 from raising construction without sanctioned plan. Therefore, unless the petitioner alleges that the construction was made without sanctioned plan and substantiates the same, it is reasonable to presume that respondent Nos.3 and 4 have completed the construction under a sanctioned plan.
For the above-mentioned reasons, I do not find any merit in the Contempt Case and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
As a sequel to dismissal of the Contempt Case, Application No.1215 of 2013 is dismissed as infructuous.
20th January 2014 DR
JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA
REDDY