APHC010456132024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] THURSDAY ,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CONTEMPT CASE NO: 4020/2024 Between: Basava Nagalakshmi ...PETITIONER AND Ch Deva Prakash and Others ...CONTEMNOR(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. BOPPUDI ALEKHYA Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 1. SOMA RAJU YELISETTI 2. K M KRISHNA REDDY The Court made the following:ORDER 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The case of the petitioner is that, despite the order passed by this Court, the respondents have not complied with the directions, have not paid compensation, and have not initiated any proceedings under the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act 30 of 2013) for the payment of compensation concerning the deviation of the canal and the occupation of additional land beyond what was acquired from the vendor. 3. In determining the allegations made by the petitioner, this Court observes that the order passed in W.P. No. 32750 of 2023, dated 11.01.2024, states as follows:- 8. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Irrigation, and on perusal of material available on record, without going into the merits of the case, the present Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondent Nos.3 and 5 herein to conduct the survey and demarcation by following the due procedure as contemplated under the provisions of the Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923, by providing an opportunity to the petitioner and other stake holders if any. After such survey and demarcation, if the respondents found that the land occupied by the subject minor irrigation canal is only Ac.0.66 cents, the petitioner is not entitled for any compensation since his vendor has already received the Award Amount. If such occupation is more than Ac.0.66 cents, the petitioner is entitled for compensation, and accordingly, the respondents shall pay the compensation to the petitioner by following due procedure as contemplated under the law. The entire exercise of the survey and demarcation should be completed within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. It is further observed that the petitioner, being an agriculturist, and his land is adjacent to the subject minor irrigation canal, he is entitled to draw the water for irrigation of his agricultural field. Therefore, respondents are restrained from interfering with the petitioner’s drawing of water from the minor irrigation canal for agricultural purposes. 4. As per the counter filed by the respondents, it is stated that in compliance with the directions of this Court, the respondents conducted a survey and demarcation after issuing notice and following due process of law. They submitted the survey report on 06.12.2024, wherein it was categorically stated that an extent of Ac.0.66 cents of land was acquired by the respondents for the formation of minor irrigation canal. It was further stated that, contrary to the petitioner's allegations, the alleged Ac.0.39 cents of land is not occupied by the respondents for irrigation canal. Therefore, there is no need to initiate any acquisition proceedings in terms of the Court's order. In view of the survey and demarcation conducted by the respondents, it is evident that the alleged extent of Ac.0.39 cents, as claimed by the petitioner, is not occupied by the respondents. Therefore, the contempt petition is liable to be closed. 5. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents, it is observed that, in compliance with the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.32750 of 2023 dated 11.01.2024, the respondents conducted a survey and demarcation and submitted a report confirming that only 0.66 cents of land were occupied. Accordingly, this Court directs that if the respondents' occupation towards the canal exceeds Ac.0.66 cents, the petitioner would be entitled to compensation. However, as the respondents have clearly admitted and proved through the survey and demarcation that they have occupied only Ac.0.66 cents, the petitioner is not entitled to any further relief through these contempt proceedings. It is further found that there is no deviation or fundamental violation on the part of the respondents. 6. In view of the facts and circumstances narrated above, the respondents neither violated nor disobeyed the order of this court. Therefore, in the absence of any deviation said to have been committed by the respondents and petitioner did not make out any contempt under section 10 and 12 of the Contempt of courts Act, 1971. Accordingly, the contempt case is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the contempt case shall stand closed. ________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 30.01.2025 KLK 226 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA (closed) Contempt Case No. 4020 of 2024 30.01.2025 klk