Telugu Church Council Vs Dr. manmohan singh, I.A.S.

Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act 1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit file herein the High Court may be pleased to to punish the respondents willfully, disobeying the orders

¶21

2

¶22

passed by the Hon'ble Sri Justice M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO of this Hon'ble Court in IA No. 1/2017 in WP No.45121/2017 dated 2-1-2018 and to pass

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶24

1.D LINGA RAO

¶25

Counsel for the Contemnor(S):

¶26

1.GP FOR ASSIGNMENT (AP)

¶27

2.GP FOR REVENUE (AP)

¶28

In W.P.No.45121/2017 :

¶29

Between:

¶30

TELUGU CHURCH COUNCIL, REP BY ITS PRESIDENT P. JAYA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, YETAPUVARI STREET, JAMMALAMADUGU, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. A.P.

¶31

...PETITIONER

¶32

AND

¶33

STATE OF AP, SECRETARIAT VELAGAPUDI AMARAVATHI

¶34

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT, A.P.

¶35

THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, JAMMALAMADUGU (M), YSR KADAPA DISTRICT.

¶36

THE TAHSILDAR, JAMMALAMADUGU MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT.

¶37

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶38

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toto issue a writ, order or a direction, more particularly one in nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of the respondents in interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner in respect of land admeasuring Ac.0.53 cents of TCC Town Church, Jammalamadugu Town situated in Sy.No. 450-1, Jammalamadugu Town, Jammalamadugu, YSR Kadapa District and further seeking to demolish the existing compound wall on the above land under the guise information in Ref. No. A/1484/2017 dated 2212-2017 issued by the Tahsildar Jammalamadugu, Yetapuvari Street, YSR

¶39

3

¶40

Kadapa District. as being arbitrary, illegal without any authority of law and in violation of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently restrain the respondents from interfering with petitioner's possession and enjoyment of subject land including the Demolish the compound of Telugu Church council without following due process of law and to pass

¶41

IA NO: 1 OF 2017

¶42

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents not to demolish the existing compound wall of Telugu church council, Yetapuvari Street, Jammalamudugu, Y.S.R. Kadapa District enjoyment of land admeasuring Ac.0.53 cents of TCC Town Church, situated in Sy.No. 450-1, Jammalamadugu Town, Jammalamadugu, YSR Kadapa District with following the due process of law and pass

¶43

IA NO: 1 OF 2018

¶44

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order granted on 2-1-2018 in IA. No. 1 of 2017 in W.P. No. 45121 of 2017.

¶45

IA NO: 2 OF 2018

¶46

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to implead the petitioner as party Respondent No.5 in Writ Petitioner No. 45121/2017

¶47

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶48

1.D LINGA RAO

¶49

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶50

1.GP FOR REVENUE (AP)

¶51

2.GP FOR REVENUE (AP)-15548/AP/15548/2017

¶52

The Court made the following:

¶53

4

¶54

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶55

CONTEMPT CASE NO: 126/2018 &

¶56

WRIT PETITION No.45121 OF 2017

¶57

The Court made the following COMMON ORDER:

¶58

The petitioner is a Church, which is said to have been in possession of Ac.16-45 cents of land in Sy.No.450/1 and 441/1 respectively of Jammalamadugu Town, YSR Kadapa District. The petitioner approached this Court, by way of W.P.No.45121 of 2017 contending that the respondents authorities were trying to take over Ac.0-53 cents of land out of the aforesaid Ac.16-45 cents, for the purpose of expansion of the adjoining road. The petitioner also contended that for this reason, the respondents are seeking to demolish the compound wall of the petitioner constructed on the said land.

¶59

This Court by an interim order, dated 02.01.2018 had granted an interim injunction restraining the respondents from demolishing the existing compound wall of the petitioner. This order is said to have been served on the respondents on 02.01.2018 itself. The petitioner also moved C.C.No.126 of 2018 on the ground that the respondents, despite service of the said order had demolished the compound wall of the petitioner on 05.01.2018 even after severe resistance by the members of the petitioner’s Church.

¶60

As both these cases arise out of the same facts, they are being disposed of by way of this common order.

¶61

5

¶62

The 3^rd respondent has filed a counter-affidavit in C.C.No.126 of 2018. In that counter-affidavit, it is stated that the land sought from the petitioner, was acquired by following due process, under the Act 30 of 2013. It is stated that an Award has also been passed on 29.06.2017 itself. It is further stated that a total compensation of Rs.5,36,15,766/- was awarded in relation to Ac.094 cents of land.

¶63

An implead petition bearing I.A.No.2 of 2018 has been filed by the Rayalaseema Dioceses of Church of South India Trust Association which claims ownership over the said land.

¶64

In view of the fact that the necessary proceedings under the Act 30 of 2013 have been completed and compensation has been determined, by way of an Award, it would have to be held that the demolition of the said wall, would in the ordinary course be in accordance with law. However, the question of whether such demolition took place despite the orders of this Court would have to be looked into.

¶65

The case of the petitioner is that the order, dated 02.01.2018, protecting the said wall, passed by this Court had been served on the respondents on 02.01.2018 itself. The 3^rd respondent filed a counter-affidavit, admitting receipt of a Xerox copy of the said order on 02.01.2018 itself. However, the 3^rd respondent states that the 3^rd respondent did not participate in any demolition of the wall and it was done by the officers of the Roads & Buildings Department. The learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend

¶66

6

¶67

that the 3^rd respondent was also personally present at the time when the wall has been demolished and participated in demolition of the wall.

¶68

As no material, demonstrating the presence of the 3^rd respondent could be placed before this Court, it would not be appropriate for this Court to hold that the 3^rd respondent was personally present and was responsible for the demolition of the wall despite the service of order of this Court on 02.01.2018 itself.

¶69

In the circumstances, the Contempt Case is closed. The 3^rd respondent is physically present before this Court and his presence is dispensed with.

¶70

W.P.No.45121 of 2017 is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioner to claim compensation awarded in relation to the land and wall claimed by the petitioner. This direction would also be subject to any claim that may be made by third party including the implead petitioner and the same can also be agitated before the competent authority / forum. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶71

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶72

________________________

¶73

R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J

¶74

________________

¶75

T.C.D. SEKHAR, J

¶76

Date: 06.03.2026 KA