T RAMADAS Vs. COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE HYD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two petitions - one invoking Article 215 and the oilier Article 226 of the Constitution of India - are primarily addressed to the alleged demolition of a compound wall, which, according to the petitioner, was constructed after proper sanction and regular litigation in this behalf before this Court and an order in W.P.M.PNo.33868 of] 996, dated 23-12-1996. According to the petitioner, property bearing H.No.6-2-805/5, situate in Thummalabasthi, Khairatabad Hyderabad, belongs to him. He has purchased the said property under a registered deed of sale, dated 20-9-1993. He made application for permission to carry out reconstruction of the premises, which existed upon the same from before and after obtaining necessary permission from the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, started the work. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Golconda, however, arrived all of a sudden and look away all construction materials and implements. Aggrieved by the above and his refusal to return the construction materials and implements, the petitioner has filed Writ Petition No.27415 of 1996. This Court has granted interim direction on 23-12-1996 restraining the respondents from interfering with the possession and construction work It appears, in the meanwhile, the Mandal got reconstituted and out of Golconda Mandal Khairatabad Mandal has been created. The new Mandal Revenue Officer of Khairtabad, it is alleged, on 18-2-1997 arrived and stopped construction at the spot and not only stopped construction but started dismantling a part of the structure with men and material styling themselves to be the demolition squad. Petitioner brought to the notice of the Mandal Revenue Officer the order of the Court in W.P.M.P.N0.33868 of 1996. Petitioner upon the above has filed Contempt Case No.238 of 1997 alleging wilful violation of the order of the Court in W.P.M.P.No.33868 of 1996. The Court in the said contempt petition once again directed for stay of all further proceedings including any steps of dismantling the structures. Petitioner has alleged, "I informed the first respondent herein about the orders passed by this Hon'ble Court in Contempt Case and a copy of the order was alsa served on the Respondent No.1 on 20-2-1997 Having acknowledged the receipt of the copy of the order passed by this Hon'ble Court on 19-2-1997, the Respondent No. 1 is understood to have instructed the Respondent No.2 to carry-out the demolition,

(2.) In the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Writ Petition No. 3727 of 1997, petitioner has alleged as above.

(3.) The version of the third respondent, however, is available in the counter affidavit, to which a reply also has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, which, when summarised, reveal as follows : The land in question is classified as a Government Nala in the town survey record. Thus, the petitioner is a land grabber within the meaning of the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act. Khairatabad Mandal was formed on 27-12-1996 as per the decision of the Government which was communicated through the proceedings of the District Collector, dated 27-12-1996. He (the deponent) was posted as Mandal Revenue Officer and took charge on 27-12-1996. He has, therefore, been not aware of the earlier proceedings filed by the petitioner and grant of interim stay not to interfere with his possession in W.P.M.P.No.33868 of l996 in Writ Petition No.27415 of l996, dated 23-12-1996. He (the deponent) received information from reliable source that the petitioner was constructing a pucca house on the above land on 18-2-1997. He visited the site and found that the petitioner was constructing the house on the Government vacant land. He advised the petitioner not to proceed with the construction. When, however, the petitioner refused to hear any oral orders, he partly demolished it with the help of subordinates to prevent the petitioner from making any further constructions. At the time of demolition on 18-2-1997, the petitioner had not shown any copies of the order passed by this Court. The impugned action was taken by the deponent in discharge of his official duties in good faith as a Mandal Revenue Officer. The deponent received the order in the Contempt Application No.198 of 1997, dated 19-2-1997, by way of telegram and the order copy of the same he received on 25-2-1997. Thereafter, he has not taken any action to demolish the house of the petitioner.