PONNA NARASIMHA REDDY Vs. DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This common order shall dispose of W.P.No. 3529 of 2000 and C.C.No. 274 of 2000 as they are interrelated. The petitioner is the owner of an extent of Ac. 8.30 guntas in S.No. 133/AA of Potireddipalli Village. Having regard to perceived convenience the petitioner's father occupied an extent of 60 Sq. Yards in S.No. 130/2 in the adjacent Government porambok land. The total extent of the land in S.No. 130/2 is Ac. 0.36 guntas. According to the petitioner his father raised a small shed with two rooms and has been living there since 1965. Potireddipalli Gram Panchayat is also levying and collecting property tax duly assigning a number to the said house being H.No. 3-52. The Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO), sixth respondent herein, initiated proceedings under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 ('the Act' for brevity) and issued a notice under Section 7 of the Act on 5-12-1997 alleging that the petitioner's father has encroached on to Government land and is required to show-cause as to why encroachment be not removed as the same is allegedly objectionable. The petitioner's father set up adverse possession and requested the MRO to drop the proceedings. After that, no action was taken by the revenue officials under the Act.

(2.) It is alleged by the petitioner that on 26-2-2000 the third respondent herein summoned the petitioner to the Police Station and ordered him to vacate the house bearing No. 3-52 to enable the Police Department to take over the same for utilisation as Traffic Police Station. When respondents 2 and 3 have also requested the first respondent to erect a compound wall encircling the petitioner's house so as to deny ingress and egress to him and when the first respondent dumped construction material near the site, the petitioner filed the Writ Petition on 1-3-2000. This Court admitted the Writ Petition on 3-3-2000 and by order of even date in W.P.M.P.No. 4625 of 2000 restrained the respondents in any manner interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the house by the petitioner and also from raising/ constructing compound wall surrounding the above house. Initially the injunction was granted for a period of four weeks, which was later extended until further 'orders by order dt. 7-4-2000. In the meanwhile the petitioner filed Contempt Case No. 274 of 2000 on 8-3-2000 inter alia alleging that though the order of this Court dt. 3-3-2000 was duly communicated orally on 4-3-2000 and by way of two Telegrams: one issued at 11.49 hours and another issued at 16.19 hours on 5-3-2000 the respondents forcibly removed the petitioner and his family members at 3.00 p.m. and continued the construction of compound wall till 9-3-2000. Therefore, the petitioner contends that the action of the respondents in proceeding with the construction and removing the petitioner in gross disobedience of the order of injunction granted by this Court on 3-3-2000 amounts to contempt.

(3.) Though the resp ondents have not filed counter-affidavits in the main Writ Petition all of them have filed elaborate counter-affidavits in the Contempt Case and as requested by the learned respective Government Pleaders these counter-affidavits are being treated as counter-affidavits in the main Writ petition also.