Allowed

Sri. T. Venkat Reddy v. Sri Amoy Kumar, IAS

Telangana HC4 Oct 2021CC/777/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a contempt of court petition filed for violating an interim order prohibiting road construction on disputed agrarian land. The court found the respondents guilty despite their claim that villagers laid the road, sentencing them to suspended imprisonment and a fine.

What did the court decide?

Sentenced to suffer 02 months' imprisonment each, suspended for 04 weeks, and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000 each within 04 weeks.

Sri. T. Venkat Reddy Vs Sri Amoy Kumar, IAS — Contempt of Court | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FC E o F TELA N GA NA

¶2

^r,l.IoH*.oBlf

¶3

MoIP.lY_,rf E FOURTH DAY oF ocroBER TWo THOUSAND AND rWrr,rrv orii-^'

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶6

CONTE MPT CASEN O:777 oF 2021

¶7

(contempt case under section r0 to 12 0f contempt of courts Act to punish the Respondent herein for, w,rfury viorating, the order of the High Court dated 16'02'2010 in w.p.M.p. No. 2938 0r 2010 in w.p. No. 2195 0f 2010.)

¶8

Between:

¶9

Sri T. V_enkat Reddy, S/o Venkatram Reddy, Aged about _ 79 years,. Occ_ Retired, R/o. 3-5-1 09074/3, Laxmi Cotony, t tarafing"uOa, HvOLiaUaO.'^{--' -'}

¶10

...PETITIONER/ Petitioner No. 2

¶11

AND

¶12

1 p-1i Amqy Kumar, lAS, District Collector, Panchyathraj, Ranga Reddy, Khairatabad, Hyderabad, Telangana, (Old Mahabubnagai Districtl

¶13

Sri Suresh Chandra Reddy, Executive Englneer, Panchyathraj, Ranga Reddy, Khairatabad, Hyderabad, Telangana, (Old tvlahabubnagar District.

¶14

.. Respondents / Respondent Nos. 2 & 3

¶15

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶16

Petition under Rule 18 of Contempt of Courts Rules^{praying that in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support^{of the petition,the HighCourt} may be pteased to dispense with the^{personalappearance for further hearings of the} respondent No. 1 in the contempt case^{No. 777 of 2021,pending disposalof the} Contempt Case.

¶17

lA NO: 2 oF 2021

¶18

Petition under Rule¹⁸ of^{Contempt of court Rules, prayingthat in the} circumstances stated^{in the affidavitfiledin support of the petition,the High court} may be^pleased may^{be pleasedto dispense with the personalappearan-cefor further} hearings of the respondent^{No. 2 in ihe contemptcase No. 777 ol 2021, pending} disposal of the ContemPt^Case.

¶19

Counsel for the^{Petitioner:SRl NEELI ASHOK KUMAR}

¶20

counselfortheRespondents:SRIP.RADHIVEREDDY,GoVT'PLEADERrepresenting FOR ADVOCATE^GENERAL

¶21

The Court made the^{following: ORDER}

¶22

HON'BLE^{SRI JUSTICEK' LAKSHMAN} CASE^{No.7 1'1(oF202L} CoNTE

¶23

RDER:

¶24

This Contempt^{Case is filed complainingwillful and deliberate} disobedience^{of the orders dated 16'02'2010 passedby this Court in} W.P.M.P. No.2938^{of 2010 in W'P' No'2195of 2010'}

¶25

Heard Mr. Neeli^{Ashok Kumar,learned counsel tbr the} petitioner and Mr. P.^{Radhive Reddy, leamed Gol'emmentPleader} representing leamed Advocate^{General appearing on behalf of} Contemnors - respondents.

¶26

) The petitioner herein and his brother,^{T. Linga Reddy,are the} owners and possessors of agriculture lands, admeasuring^{Acs.5.28guntas} in Sy. Nos.313,356 and 5, situated at Doosakal Village of Farooq Nagar' Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. They have been in possession and enjoyrnent ofthe said properlies since their ancestors.

¶27

The respondent authorities laid a Cement Concrete (CC) Road in an extent of Ac.0.08 guntas out of Acs.4.02 guntas in Sy.No.313 of Dooskal Village, Farooq Nagal Mandal, Mahabubnagar District, without following the due procedure including the procedure laid down under Land Acquisition Act. The said road was laid to link the ad.jacent colony in the Viltage. The respondents' authorities have also been taking steps to occupy their land to an extent of Ac.0.21 guntas out of Acs.4-02 guntas in Sy.No.356 and Acs.1.05 guntas in Sy.No.5 of the very same

¶28

¶29

KL,J C.C. No.777^{of2aZ l}

¶30

village for^{providingroads and constluctionof houseswithoutfollowing} the due^{processof law'Therefore' theyhavefiled W'P' No'2195 of 2010} to declare^{the said action of the respondentsthereinas illegal' After} hearing^{bothsides, this Courl vide order dated 16'02'2010 in W'P'M'P'} No'2938^{of 2010in W.P. No.2195 of 2010, passed the following order:}

¶31

"Notice.

¶32

There shalt^{be a direction to the respondentsnot to} dit;;;;;" fetitioners^{from the land in question} *iittout following^{due processof law"'}

¶33

Despite^{fumishing copy of the said orderto the respondents'} they^{gathered material to lay a CC road from the land of the petitioner in} Sy.No.5^{to approach the Graveyardby engagingvehicles' suchas} Concrete^{Mixture bearingregistrationNos'TS 06EM 3108' AP 16TA} 8978 and^{other vehicles' Then, the petitioner made a complaintdated} Og.06.2[21to^{the respondents' the Inspectorof Police'Farooq Nagarand} the Mandal^{Parishad DevelopmentOfficer (MPDO)'Shadnagarabout the} said laying^{of road and alsobroughtto their notice about the aforesaid} interimorders.Thepetitioneralsogotissuedlegalnoticedated 11.06.2021.^{In spite of the same'the respondentslaid the road in the} patta land^{of the petitioner whichamountsto deliberate and willful} violation^{of the said interimorders'Thus' both the respondents are liable} for punishment.

¶34

Respondent^{No'l filed his counter afhdavitstating thathe got} issued^{reply to the legal notice dated 1l'06'2021throughrespondent} No.2,inwhichithasbeenspecificallymentionedthataspertherecords'

¶35

¶36

KL,J C.C. No.777 of 2a2 t

¶37

there was no sanction for formation / laying of CC^{roadin the landof the} petitioner in any of the grants including Grarn Panchayerth, and^{that no} mark out was given by the Assistant Executive^{Engineer, Panchayath} Raj, Farooq Nagar Mandal. The Sarpanch, Dooskal Village^{and the} MPDO, Farooq Nagar Mandal were informed not to take up any^{work or} activity in the subject land against the orders of the Cout. Copy of^the Court Notice was also communicated to them. The^petitioner without verifuing the true and corect facts filed the present contempt case. On receipt of the notice in the present Contempt Case, respondent No.l instructed the Officials of the Panchayath Raj Department to ascertain the factual position at the land, on which it was informed by the District Panchayath Officer (DPO), Shadnagar that the alleged CC road was laid by the villagers and the adjacent pattadars and that the petitioner herein is not staying in the village. On the instructions of respondent No. l, the olllcials removed the CC road from the disputed land ort 24.08.2021 as reported by the Mandal Panchayath Officer, Farooq Nagar Mandal. Thus, respondent No.1 never violated lhe interim order dated 16.02.2010 passed by this Court. Respondent No. I would fufther state that he has utmost respect and regards towards this Court as well as its orders. With the said submissions, respondent No.l sought to disrriiss the present Contempt Case.

¶38

Respondent No.2 filed his counter affidavit and the same is almost on the same lines as that of respondent No.1.

¶39

¶40

KL,J

¶41

C.C, No.777^{of 2021}

¶42

The^{petitionerherein has hled reply to the counter affidavits} filed by^{the respondents' In the reply' it is specificallymentioned that the} respondents^{deployed the vehiclesfor transportingthe sand and cement} etc., and^{the Gram Panchayath'swaterTanker is also very much palked} in the^{vicinityof the land,to process the work of laying cc road'ln} proofofthe^{same,the petitionerhas filed photographs' Bringingthe said} actstothenoticeoftherespondents,thepetitionergotissuedalegal notice.^{The repiy dated15 '07 '2021given by respondent No'2to the said} notice^{is vague.Therespondentscannot support their action by saying} that no^{amountwas sanctioned for formationof CC roadand that no} mark out^{was given by the Assistant Engineerof the PanchayathRaj} Department,^{whichis nothing but a createdone'The facts on the ground} would reveal^{that though the road was beinglaidand was in progress' the} same^{was stoppedonlyafter issuing the notice by the petitionerthrough} his counsel^{and filing the present Contempt Case' Removingof the CC} road will^{not absolvethe liability of the respondents fromthe Contempt} Case.^{The petitioner's valuable cultivableland was damagedon account} of taying^{the CC road'Even if it is removed'it was not useful for} immediate^{cultivation'For removal of entire debris'it wouldincur huge} amount.^{As the respondents themselvesadmittedtheir own violation'} they are^{liable for} Punishment'

¶43

lt is^{further contended that VaikuntaDamam (Crematorium)is} situated in^{Sy.No'4 in an extent of Ac'0'15 guntas' whereasthe land of} the petitioner^{in Sy'No'5 is adjacent to the said land' The respondentsare}

¶44

¶45

KL,J C.C. No.777 of 2021

¶46

undertaking new constmction of toilets and bath rooms etc. in Vaikuntct Damam encroaching the land of the petitioner without his con Eent and without lollowing the due procedure for acquisition.

¶47

The above stated facts would reveal that after hearing both i sides, this Court has passed interim order on 16.02.20|0 in W.p.M.p. No.2938 of 2010 in W.P. No.2195 of 2010. There is r.ro denial in the counter affidavits filed by the respondents that they have not received the said interim orders and that they do not have knowledge of the said orders. The peritioner herein got issued notice dated I1.06.2021 to the respondents apart from submitting a letter dated o4.os.2o2l addressed to respondent No.2. The petitioner herein has also filed the photogiaphs to show that the respondents have laid the road from his land leading to Va ikunta Dhamam (Crematorium).

¶48

1 l. A perusal of the photographs would reveal that there are two vehicles including a water Tanker of the Gram panchayath in the subject land. Now, it ip the contention of the respondents that they have not sanctioned any amount either to lay cc road or to construct yaikunta Dhamam (Crematorium). Therefore, the question of laying CC road or constructing Vaikunta Dhamam does not arise. However, on receipt of the notice in the present contempt case, respondent No.1 instructed the Officials of the Panchayath Raj Department, Shadnagar, to ascertain the factual position at the subject land, who in tum, intbrmed that the alleged CC road was laid by the villagers and the adjacent pattadars of the land and that the petitioner herein is not staying in the village. On the

¶49

¶50

KL,J C.C. No.777 of 2021

¶51

instructions of the respondents, the officials also removed the CC road from the land of the petitioner on24.08.2021 as reported by the Mandal Panchayath Officer, Farooq Nagar Mandal. Thus, both the respondents have admitted with regard to the laying of CC road and removal of the same In ploof of the removal of the said debris, the respondents have also fi1ed photographs.

¶52

The respondents have filed a letter dated | 5 .07 .2021 addressed by the District Panchayat Raj Engineer, PIU, Ranga Reddy District, to the learned counsel for the petitioner, wherein it is stated that the Panchayath Secretary and the Sarpanch of Dooskal Gram Panchayath were informed not to take up any work or activity against the Court order in the disputed site and that the same was also brought to the notice of the Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Farooq Nagar and the DLPO Shadnagar while comrrunicating a copy of the Courl Notice. Vide letter dated 19.06.2021, the District Panchayath Raj Engineer, PIU, Mahabubnagar District informed the District Panchayath Raj Engineer, PIU, Ranga Reddy District, that after forrlation of new Districts in the Telangana State, Shadnagar Mandal comes under the jurisdiction ol Ranga Reddy District. Therefore, while transmitting the Conternpt ol Court Notice, the District Par.rchayath Raj Engineer, PIU,, Ranga Reddy District, has requested to take further necessary action in the matter.

¶53

It is not in dispute that the respondents have received legal notice dated 11.06.2021 and they have given reply to it on 15.07.2021 through respondent No.2. Vide letter dated 27.06.2021, the Deputy

¶54

¶55

KL,J C C. No.777 of202l

¶56

Executive Engineer, PRSD, Shadnagar, informed the Distri<:t^Panchayath Raj Engineer, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad, that no sanction^for formation or laying of CC road in the site or the road leading to crematorium in any of the grant including GP and that no :rrark out was given by the AEE, Farooq Nagar. The Secretary / Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayath, Dooskal were also requested not to take up any activities if any, in the disputed site. The same was also brought to the notice of the MPDO, Farooq Nagar. Thus, the respondents have admitted about the subsistence of the interim order dated 16.02.2010 in W.P.M.P. No.2938 of 20i0. They have also admitted about the laying of Ctl road in the subject land, but according to them, some villagers and the adjacent pattedals have laid it.

¶57

As discussed above, the photographs filed by the petitioner would reveal about the deploying of the vehicles for laying the road. Though the respondents have stated that the villagers anc the adjacent pattadars of the land have laid the road, they have not tak3n any action against them. They have not even taken any action against the Sarpanch and other villagers. A perusal of the photographs filed by the respondents would reveal that they have dismantled the CC road laid partiatly from the land of the petitioner, but they have not rernoved the debris, and not dismantled the balance road. Due to layi9ng of road, the cultivable land of the petitioner was damaged.

¶58

It is relevant to note that the petitioner herein has llled the present Contempt Case on 23.06.2021 and it came up for admission on

¶59

¶60

KL,.] C.C. No.777 o/2021

¶61

30.07.2021, on which day, this Court had issued Form-l, to the respondents. In the counter affidavits filed by the respondents, they have stated that on24.08.2021, the officials have remor,ed the CC road in the disputed site and the sarne was reported by the MPDO, Falooq Nagar. It is also relevant to note that the petitioner herein has submitted a representation dated 04.05.2021 to respondent No.l and also a complaint to the MPDO and the Inspector of Police, Farooq Nagar. I-{e got issued a legal notice on 1I.06.2021 to which, the respondents have given reply dated 15.07.2021. Even then, according to the respondents, they have removed the CC road only on 24.08.2021.

¶62

As discussed above, the respondents have not reraoved the CC road laid in the land of the petitioner totally. They have not taken any action against the villagers, Sarpanch and the adjacent pattadals of the land. It is also relevant to note that respondent No.2 is the Executive Engineer, Panchayath Raj,, Ranga Reddy District, who is also respondent No.3 in the writ petition. Though, it is contended by the petitioner that the vehicles including the Water Tanker belongs to the Gran.r Panchayat, Dooskal, deployed at the disputed site for laying the CC road, he has not filed the contempt against the Secretary of the Gram Panchayath, who is an'ayed as respondent No.4 in the writ petition. However, respondent No.l being the District Collector and in view of the formation of new Districts in the State of Telangana and the order is of 2010, by which time, the subject land was within the^jurisdiction of Mahabubnagar District and after formation of new Districts, it falts within the

¶63

¶64

KL,J C.C. No.777^{of 2A2l}

¶65

jurisdiction ofRanga Reddy^{District' Therefore'he cannotclaim that he} has no knowledge^{of the interim orders passed by this Court in the above} writ petition.^{Further, respondentNo'2 being the Executive Engineer'} Panchayath^{Raj Department, Ranga ReddyDistrict is expected to takea1l} necessary steps^{to implementthe interimorders passed by this Courtas} he is the concerned^{authority who dealt with the disputeright from the} beginning.^{Thus, the conduct of respondentNo'2 is highlydoubtful'} Respondents^{cannotthrow the blame on the Sarpanch'Villagers'} Pattadars of^{adjacentland andescape from the present contempt case'} Though, the^{petitioner submitted a representation dated04'05'2021'got} issued legal^{notice dated11.06.2021and the repiygiven by the} respondents dated^{15.07.2021, respondents have not taken any effective} stepstoremovetheCCroadfromthelandofthepetitioner'Thus'both the respondents^{have willfullyand deliberatelyviolated rhe interim} orders dated^{16.02.2010passedby this Courtin W'P'M'P'No'2938 of} 2010inW.P.No.2195of2010and,assuch,theyareiiablefor punishment.

¶66

17 . The^{presentContempt Case is accordinglyallowed against} both the respondents^{sentencingthem to suffer 02 (two) months} imprisonment^{each and to pay a fine of Rs'2,000/-(Rupees Two} Thousand Only)^{each within 04 (four)weeksfrom today' However'the} sentence of imprisonment^{is suspended for a period of 04 (four)weeks} from today.

¶67

KL,J C.C. No.777 ol202 t

¶68

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in

¶69

the Contempt Case stand closed.

¶70

SD/- C.V. MALLIKARJUNA VARMA DEPUTY RE ISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION^OFFICER

i]'Sri nroy^{Kumar, lAS, District Collector, Panchyathraj' Ranga Reddy'} ' in.iirtrb"J, nyaeraoio, Telangana, (old Mahabubnagar District)

¶75

1. Sri Suresh^{ChandraneOAV, ExetutiveEngineer, Panchyathraj, Ranga Reddy'}

¶76

[h*"t"b"J, Hyderabad, ielangana,- (Old Mahabubnagar District'

¶77

il;'AJ;;;;ie^{6eneral,Higl'' co-utt of relangana' at Hvderabad'} + o.L ct iJ^{sRl. N ASHoi<KUMARAdvocatetoPUCl} 5. rwo ccs^{sriP. RADHIv;R;;DY; CF ron-inucHAYATRAJ RURAL DEV}

¶78

irCl ,High court for the State of Telangana [OUT]

¶79

1. il;'S;;ii";6tri.",^{o s. 5"ction, Higicouri_ofrelanganaat Hyderabad.,} 7. The Section^{Oticer, nccoJntsS"ttio"n,High Court of Telangana' at Hyderabad'}

¶80

Two CD^CoPies

.*""

HIGH COURT

KLJ

DATED:0411012021

1 ri s )A i{:
(
co 07 0[T?021 ,i
s

¶86

ORDER

¶87

CC.No.777 ot 2021'

¶88

ALLOWING THE CONTEMPT CASE

¶89

"{^uJ +

Sri. T. Venkat Reddy v. Sri Amoy Kumar, IAS

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. T. Venkat Reddy v. Sri Amoy Kumar, IAS

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

G. Sunil Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

Gogu Yadhamma Vs The State of Telangana and 7 others

M/s Bakul Apartments Owners Association Vs The State of Telangana and 8 others

Block C Owners Welfare Association Vs The State of Telangana and 6 others

Smt.Pallepati Suguna Vs The State of Telangana

S.Balwantha Reddy Vs State of Telangana and another