Dismissed

Jaka Rakhatoon v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its

Telangana HC27 Jul 2012CC/1400/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a contempt petition filed against respondents for allegedly violating an interim order prohibiting interference with petitioners' possession of allotted land. The court found no proof of prior notice to the specific respondent who initiated proceedings under the Land Encroachment Act, holding that the petitioners failed to establish a case of violation.

What did the court decide?

The Contempt Case filed against the respondents is dismissed.

Jaka Rakhatoon Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh… — Contempt of Court | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Contempt Case No.1400 of 2009

¶2

ORDER:-

¶3

This Contempt Case has been filed by the petitioners in Writ Petition No.19047 of 2009 complaining the violation of the interim order dated 10-9-2009 passed in W.P.M.P.No.24887 of 2009.

¶4

The interim order reads as hereunder:-

¶5

“There shall be interim direction to the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the petitioners over the respective lands allotted to them, without following the dur process of law.”

¶6

Notice before admission came to be issue to the respondents on 17-4-2012.

¶7

The 4^th respondent namely Smt.B.Maha Lakshmi, Tahasildar, Pedagantyada Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, has sworn to the counter affidavit. It is stated in the counter affidavit that proceedings have been initiated under the provisions of the Land Encroachment Act, 1905 for removal of unauthorized occupants of the plots allotted to Barma Repatriates and as the occupants refused to receive the notices, copies of notices came to be served by way of affixation and there being no explanation to the show cause notices, final orders came to be passed under Section 7 of the A.P.Land Encroachment Act. For better appreciation, I may refer para 6 of the counter affidavit, which reads as hereunder:-

¶8

“…………. As the encroachers failed to remove the said unauthorized encroachments by way of foundations, a notice under Section 7 of the A.P.Land Encroachment Act was issued to Sri Boddu Satyarao (slabbed house), Pidugu Sanyasirao (Slabbed house), Pendra Appanna (slabbed house), Adari Nageswara Rao (slabbed house), Polisetty Jayalaxmi (lental level), Pendra Appanna (hut), son of

¶9

Appadu, Chittiboina Lakshmi (shed), Sadhu Bhaskararao (slabbed house), Sadhu Kanthamma (shed), Goma Harinath (slabbed house), Mangi Leelavathi (slabbed house) and Pendri Ramappadu (foundation), Palikiri Sandhya Rao (foundation). Since they refused to take the notices as such substitute service by affixing the same on the door of the house of the individuals. A tom tom was also made in the locality and also in the village stating that the land in Sy.No.91 and 92 of Pedagantyada village is Government land allotted to Burma Repatriates long back and any unauthorized encroachments on the said land should be removed immediately. I submit that the present petitioners are unauthorized occupants and their names were also not included in 4-C (Encroachment Account) in Pedagantyada village to consider their grievance and they were severely warned not to raise any unauthorized occupations. As they failed to remove the unauthorized foundations and also failed to appear before this r before 2- 9-2009 as directed, a further notice under Section 6 of the A.P.Land Encroachment Act, 1905 was issued on 4-9-2009 directing them to remove the unauthorized occupations on the Government land. As they failed to remove the unauthorized occupations within the stipulated time of seven days, on 14-9-2009, this respondent visited the spot along with Head Quarters Deputy tender, Mandal Revenue Inspector, Village Revenue Officer and other staff and 15 unauthorized foundations were demolished. Except this, rest of the houses and huts were not demolished and the encroachers were severely warned that the said land was allotted to Burma Repatriates long back and requested them to vacate the buildings constructed on the Government land immediately. At the time of demolition on 14-9-2009, the petitioners did not show any stay orders passed by this Hon'ble Court on 10-9-2009. This respondent also did not receive any orders from this Hon'ble Court. This respondent was not aware of the orders passed by this Hon'ble Court and hence this respondent did not commit any willful or deliberate contempt of the orders passed by this Hon'ble Court as alleged by the petitioners. It is only on

¶10

1-10-2009 when the Advocate of the petitioners sent a copy of the order, this respondent came to know of the order passed by this Hon'ble Court.”

¶11

Heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Assignment appearing for the respondents.

¶12

It is contended by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners that the respondents despite having the knowledge of the interim order passed by this Court on 10-9-2009 proceeded to demolish the structures put up by the petitioners and therefore the petitioners are liable for punishment under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. Learned Counsel refers the notice dated 149-2009 addressed to the Tahasildar, Mandal Revenue Office, Pedagantyada, Visakhapatnam, in support of his contention that the order dated 10-9-2009 has been brought to the notice of the respondents.

¶13

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Assignment submits that Tahasildar, Pedagantyada, has not been made as a party in the Writ Petition and therefore it cannot be said that respondent No.4 – Smt.B.Maha Lakshmi as Tahasildar, Pedagantyada, Visakhapatnam, violated the interim order dated 10-9-2009 passed in W.P.M.P.No.24887 of 2009.

¶14

The petitioners filed the Writ Petition impleading the Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Principal Secretary (Revenue), The District Collector, Visakhapatnam, The Tahasildar, Visakhapatnam. Interim order has been passed against the above referred respondents. The material brought on record indicates that proceedings under the provisions of the A.P.Land Encroachment Act have been initiated by the Tahasildar, Pedagantyada. A show cause

¶15

notice was issued under Section 7 of the Act and there being no reply to the show cause notice, final orders came to be passed on 14-9-2009 and the said order came to be given effect on 14-9-2009. The petitioners did not choose to implead the Tahasildar, Pedagantyada, who initiated the proceedings under the provisions of the A.P.Land Encroachment Act, 1905. Though the petitioners contend that the interim order has been brought to the notice of the Tahasildar, Pedagantyada, by issuing notice dated 14-9-2009, no proof has been filed to show that the said notice has been served on the Tahasildar, pedagantyada, on 14-9-2009. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the interim order has been brought to the notice of the Tahasildar, Pedagantyada on 1-10-2009. In that view of the matter, I find that the petitioners failed to make out a case against the respondents that they violated the interim order dated 10-9-2009 passed in W.P.M.P.No.24887 of 2009.

¶16

Accordingly, the Contempt Case is dismissed.

¶17

_________________________ B.Seshasayana Reddy, J 27^th July, 2012 smr

Jaka Rakhatoon v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaka Rakhatoon v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Veerasaram Rukma , Kummari Rukma Vs Md. Gousuddin

The United India Insurance Company Ltd, Div. Office, Vs Mr.Singarapu Prakash

Ponna Munikrishnaiah, Vs Tamilnadu STate Transport Corporation, Represented by its

Edla Buchaiah Allias Pichaiah, Vs Govt.Of India

Yarlagadda Venkata Rama Rao Vs The Govt of A.P

Madupally Yadaiah Vs Revenue Divisional Officer, Jangaon, Warangal District.