Dismissed

Srihari Rao Chaganti v. Sri. Gopal Krishna Dwivedi

Andhra Pradesh HC15 Mar 2021CC/49/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order adjudicates a contempt petition filed for alleged non-compliance of an interim direction stopping construction in a Government land classified as Vagu. The Court found that the respondents had halted work based on official directions and closed the case.

What did the court decide?

The Contempt Case was closed and pending miscellaneous petitions were dismissed.

Srihari Rao Chaganti Vs Sri. Gopal Krishna… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH

¶2

CONTEMPT CASE No.49 of 2021

¶3

ORDER:-

¶4

The present Contempt Case is filed for non-compliance and violation of the orders, dated 26.11.2020 in W.P.No.22191 of 2020 wherein this Court disposed of the said Writ Petition with the following direction:

¶5

“ As per the document filed by the petitioner, it shows that in Sy.No.133/3 to an extent of Ac.0.74 cents, which is a Government land has classified as “Vagu”.

¶6

In view of the above, there shall be an interim direction, directing the respondents not to make any constructions in the water body for a period of four (04) weeks.”

¶7

After receipt of notice, the 2^nd as well as the 4^th respondents, have field their separate counters.

¶8

As per the counters, on receipt of the copy of the affidavit in Contempt Case in W.P.No.22191 of 2020, dated 29.12.2020 together with the copy of the order passed by this Court, dated 26.11.2020, immediately the Tahsildar has directed the Panchayat Secretary, Kamepalli Village vide their office Rc.Dt./223/2020 dated 29.12.2020 duly enclosing the order copy, dated 26.11.2020 that no construction activity to take place in the Sy.No.133/3 which is classified as Vagu Poramboke. Accordingly the construction of the Village Secretariat work has been stopped.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that even now the respondents are proceeding with the construction work in the subject

¶10

land. However, the petitioner has not chosen to file any reply or any material to substantiate that the respondents are making construction at Survey No.133/3.

¶11

In view of the averments made in the counter, this Court is of the considered opinion that after grant of interim direction, respondents have directed the concerned, to stop construction work at Survey No.133/3, therefore, I found no merits in this case. Hence, the Contempt Case is closed.

¶12

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand

¶13

dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶14

_______________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH

¶15

Date: 15.03.2021

¶16

Pnr

¶17

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH

¶18

CONTEMPT CASE No.49 of 2021

¶19

Dated 15.03.2021

¶20

Pnr

Srihari Rao Chaganti v. Sri. Gopal Krishna Dwivedi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Srihari Rao Chaganti v. Sri. Gopal Krishna Dwivedi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Molla Jakir Hussain, Kurnool Dist Vs Porl Secy, Mines and Industries, Hyd and 4 Ot

Mula Maisura Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

P.Brahmayya Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, (Excise-Ii)

Ponnekanty chakravarthi Vs State Of Andhra Pradesh

Choppara Sridevi Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

M/S Sivanandhini Minerals Vs State of Andhra Pradaesh