G KALAVATHI Vs. C ANAND RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The contempt case in C.C.No. 1819 of 1999 has been filed by the petitioner against five official respondents and four unofficial respondents viz., Sri C. Anand Rau, Chief Secretary to the Government of Andhra Pradesh, Sri Bhanwarilal, Hyderabad District Collector (Sri Anand Rau's name was later deleted from the cause title as not necessary party by order of the Court dated 29-3-2000), Sri C. Prabhakar, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Shaikpet Mandal, Hyderabad, Sri D. Sri Rama Murthy, Chief Engineer (Buildings), Roads and Buildings Dept., Hyderabad, Sri M. Veera Bhadraiah, M/s. Mohan Reddy, Subrahmanyam, Ramesh Reddy and Sri Srinivas Rao, Hyderabad alleging that they disobeyed the orders of this Court in W.P.No. 11714 of 1986, dated 14-10-1998 and W.A.No. 742 of 1989, dated 14-9-1995 by making constructions of residential quarters for Ministers as they shall be summoned and punished.

(2.) The Contempt Application in C.A.No. 1563 of 1999 has also been preferred by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents-contemnors to stop the construction over the land of the petitioner admeasuring Ac. 10-00 in S. No. 129/36/1 of Shaikpet village, Road No. 13, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, covered by the notice, dt. 20-6-86, pending disposal of the C. C.

(3.) The facts that lead to the filing of the Contempt Case by the petitioner, in brief, are that she is the absolute owner and possessor of land admeasuring Ac. 10-00 in S. No. 129/36/1, being part of S. No. 403, Shaikpet village, Road No. 13, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. She purchased the said property under a registered sale deed, bearing document No. 279-1991, dated 11-2-1971, from one Mr. Papaiah. The said Papaiah had purchased the said property under a registered sale deed, bearing document No. 573/1963, dated 28-2-1963, from one Venkat Swamy. The said Venkat Swamy got the said property through a patta issued by the authorities way back in the year 1340 Fasli. The said property is bounded by North : Nala (Government land), South: Road No. 13, East: Land in S. No. 129/75 belonging to Hyderabad Industries Limited and West: Land belonging to Khazi Mohd. Hussain in S. No. 129/36. She leased out the said land in favour of M/s. Hyderabad Industries Limited under a registered lease deed, dated 27-6-1971. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Golconda Mandal, issued a notice under Section 6 of the A. P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905, dated 20-6-1986, bearing No. C/4360/1983, calling upon her lessee to vacate the land within three days from the date of receipt of the said notice. Assailing the said notice, she filed Writ Petition No. 11714 of 1986 seeking a declaration that the action of the Mandal Revenue Officer in issuing the said notice as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and further to direct the Officer not to interfere with her possession over the said land, which was allowed by this Court by an order, dated 14-10-1988. Aggrieved by the said order of the learned single Judge, the State filed Writ Appeal No. 742 of 1989, wherein the Division Bench of this Court while dismissing the appeal on 14-9-1995 directed the parties to maintain status quo for a period of three months from that day to take appropriate steps by the Government. In spite of the fact that this Court granted three months time to take appropriate steps by the Government, no steps were taken to establish their title by way of a civil suit. Since the said notice, dated 20-6-1986, was held to be illegal, she is in continuous enjoyment with absolute rights as the owner of the said property. As the matters stood thus, it was stated, respondent Nos. 1 to 5 herein have permitted the contractors i.e., respondent Nos. 6 to 9 to undertake construction of residential quarters for the Ministers. On 19-11-1999 she visited the said property and to her surprise and shock she found that the construction of buildings was taking place over the land in question. On 20-11-1999 she got issued a telegraphic notice from the office of Sri Mahmood Ali, Advocate, calling upon the respondents to stop the construction activity forthwith. On 23-11-1999 she got issued another telegraphic notice for the same purpo se. Finally, on 26-11-1999 she got issued a registered notice from the office of the said Advocate calling upon the respondents to stop construction work over her land. Along with the said notice, she also enclosed copies of the orders in Writ Petition No. 11714 of 1988 and Writ Appeal No. 742 of 1989 and the aforesaid two telegraphic notices. But, the said notices have no effect on the respondents as they are proceeding with the construction work with great speed. She also got the buildings under construction photographed. In the past also when the authorities tried to lay a road through the said property, she got issued a notice, dated 17-12-1988, from the office of Sri P. Ramachandra Reddy, Advocate. Thereupon, the work was stopped. The construction work of buildings undertaken by the respondents is in total violation of the aforesaid orders of the Court. On enquiry, it was stated, she learnt that the construction activity commenced sometime in August, 1999, and being a housewife she came to know of the same only in the third week of November, 1999. Therefore, in view of the above facts, the respondents are guilty of contempt of the authority of this Court and are liable to be punished under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act. Therefore, she prayed to summon the respondents and punish them for Wilful disobedience of the orders of this Court passed in Writ Appeal No. 742 of 1989, dated 14-9-1995, in the interest of justice.