In a contempt case alleging violation of an earlier order restricting evictions before following statutory procedure, the Court found a contradiction between petitioner claims and respondents pleadings. Since the petitioner admitted the house remained standing, the alleged violation did not exist.
The contempt case was closed without punishing the respondents.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN CONTEMPT CASE NO.280 OF 2012
ORDER:
In this contempt case, the order of this Court, in W.P.No.23256 of 2011 dated 25.8.2011, is alleged to have been violated. It is the petitioner’s specific case, in the affidavit filed in support of the contempt case, that the 2nd respondent along with others had, highhandedly, evicted them from their houses, demolished their house in 3 cents, had plucked the eucalyptus trees raised in Ac.1-20 cents, had set fire to the trees, and had started construction of Indiramma Houses, without following the procedure prescribed under the A.P. Land Encroachment Act.
A counter affidavit is filed by the respondents wherein it is specifically asserted that the building constructed by the petitioner in 3 cents of land has not been demolished, and it continues to exist as on date.
The order of this Court, in W.P.No.23256 of 2011 dated 25.8.2011, required the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners from the land, to the limited extent it was in their possession over which their houses were constructed, except in accordance with the law including the provisions of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act. In its order, this Court specifically noted the submissions of the Learned Government Pleader for Revenue that the petitioners had illegally occupied 3 cents of government land and had constructed houses thereon. It is only to the limited extent of 3 cents of land that the respondents were directed not to proceed against the petitioner except in accordance with the provisions of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act.
Sri A.Sreedhar, Learned Counsel for the petitioners, would submit that, while one house has not been demolished, the other
house was demolished. No reference is made to any other house in the order, violation of which is said to have resulted in the present contempt case being filed. Once it is accepted, on behalf of the petitioner, that the house constructed by the petitioner in 3 cents of land has not been demolished, the respondents cannot be said to have violated the order of this Court much less willfully and deliberately.
I see no reason, therefore, to proceed against the respondents under the Contempt of Courts Act. The contempt case is closed.
RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J
Date:20.04.2012 Asp
2 issues framed by the court
Whether there was a violation of the prior order regarding eviction and construction on government land under the A.P. Land Encroachment Act.
Whether the respondents' alleged actions constitute a cognizable contempt of this Court.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Petitioners (land claimants)
Respondents (land developers)
RAMESH RANGANATHAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
