THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY CONTEMPT CASE No.1125 of 2014 Dated: 26.09.2014 Between:
Sri Satya Sai Enclave Residential Welfare Association, Rep. by its General Secretary and Authorised Signatory Luyes Augustine.
.. Petitioner and Srishar and others.
.. Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. J.C. Francies Counsel for the Respondents: G.P. for Revenue (TS) The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This contempt case is filed alleging willful disobedience of order dated 24.10.2013 in W.P.No.30392 of 2013.
The petitioner has filed the above-mentioned writ petition for a Mandamus to declare the inaction of the revenue officials and the police in constructing a separate boundary wall for the Muslim graveyard in Sy.No.269 of Chandanagar, and for a consequential direction to the said officials to provide a separate ingress and egress to the said Muslim graveyard. On the representation of the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Telangana Area) that the petitioner’s representation, which was received by the office of respondent No.2 on 05.07.2013, has been under active consideration, that the revenue officials will undertake the survey and demarcate the boundaries between Sy.Nos.269 and 270 and that thereafter they will request the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation to raise a compound wall separating the Muslim graveyard from the residential colony of the petitioner, this Court has disposed of the writ petition, by order dated 24.10.2013, granting three months’ time to the respondents to complete the above-mentioned process. Alleging that the said order has not been complied with, the petitioner filed the present contempt case.
Respondent No.3 filed a counter-affidavit, wherein he has inter alia stated that in compliance with the order of this Court, the Mandal Surveyor has been directed to fix up the boundaries of the existing graveyard along with the boundaries of the land in Sy.Nos.269 and 270 and that, accordingly, the Mandal Surveyor has conducted survey, fixed the boundaries and submitted his report on 21.07.2014. That on demarcation of the land in Sy.Nos.269 and 270, it is found that the Muslim graveyard is falling in an extent of 0.37½ gts. and 0.0½ gts. in Sy.No.269, in all admeasuring 0.38 gts., and that the same is covered by a compound wall. As regards the undertaking that a letter will be addressed to the G.H.M.C. for construction of compound wall, it is stated that since already a compound wall is in existence, there was no necessity of addressing such letter.
At the hearing, Mr. J.C. Francies, learned counsel for the petitioner, has invited this Court’s attention to the survey map enclosed to the report of respondent No.3 and stated that the map shows that the passage is created and described as road in Sy.No.270 belonging to the petitioner, to facilitate the users of Muslim graveyard to carry the dead bodies through colony land.
Learned Government Pleader for Revenue (Telangana State) has submitted that the Mandal Surveyor has only depicted the position on the ground and that the said road has not been created by the revenue authorities.
As noted hereinbefore, this Court has disposed of the writ petition on the submission of the learned Assistant Government Pleader that survey and demarcation work will be carried out and that based on such demarcation, the G.H.M.C. will be addressed to raise a compound wall.
As regards the first part of the undertaking, it is not in dispute that the respondents have complied with the same. As regards the letter to be addressed to the G.H.M.C. for raising compound wall, it is the pleaded case of the respondents that already a compound wall is in existence separating Sy.Nos.269 and 270 and there was no need for addressing such letter. This stand of the respondents is not disputed by the petitioner. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the respondents have fully complied with the order of this Court. If the petitioner has any grievance regarding the correctness of survey and demarcation work or use of a part of its site in Sy.No.270 as ingress and egress to the graveyard in Sy.No.269, it is entitled to avail appropriate remedy according to law before the competent forum for protecting its property from being misused by third parties.
Subject to the liberty given to the petitioner as above, the contempt case is closed.
C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 26th September, 2014 IBL