1 APHC010466392023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3310] FRIDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO CONTEMPT CASE NO: 5049/2023 Between: Chennuri Lakshmi Jyosna (died) and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND Sri Lakshmi I A S and Others ...CONTEMNOR(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. K JYOTHI PRASAD Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 1. SUBBA RAO KORRAPATI 2. B S SHIVAJI The Court made the following: ORDER: This Contempt case has been filed to punish the contemnors/respondents under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act 1971 for violation of the orders and for not implementing the order of this Court in W.P.No.17719 of 2023, dated 19.07.2023. 2. This Court, vide order, dated 19.07.2023, in W.P.No.17719 of 2023, has passed the following interim order: 2 “……In the meanwhile, the respondents are directed to not to demolish the house of the petitioner bearing D No.20-3-355 situated in Survey No.484/4, Siva Jyothi Nagar, Revenue Ward No.20, Tirupati, Tirupati District…” 3. Heard Sri K. Jyothi Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri K. Subba Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 4. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, this Court has granted the above interim order on 19.07.2023 and the same is extended from time to time. While so, the 2nd respondent has sent their subordinates on 5.9.2023 along with JCBs and demolished part of the subject building. Even though the petitioner showing the order copy which was granted by this Court on 19.07.2023, and subsequent extension orders, the respondent authorities kept deaf ear. He submits that, if the 2nd respondent wants to lay a road, they have to follow due process of law by serving notices on the petitioners after giving an opportunity to them. But in this case, no notice was given to the petitioners or no opportunity of hearing is given to the petitioners, which is illegal and arbitrary. So, the action of the respondents/contemnors amounts to willful disobedience and violation of order passed by this Court dated 19.07.2023. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submits that they have filed counter affidavit denying the allegations made in the petition. As per counter, he submits that, in compliance of the interim order of this Court, this 1st respondent office vide Govt Memo No.2180840/12/2023 dated 22.08.2023 has requested the 2nd Respondent to take necessary action, as per rules in force and vide Govt Memo 2180840/12/2023 Dated 10.10.2023 had requested to 3 furnish a detailed report / the action taken report in this regard, to which, the 2nd Respondent vide Roc.No.246/2023/G2/GS, dt:11.10.2023 has submitted a detailed report categorically stating that the officials of the 2nd Respondent have not touched the property of the petitioner and that the allegations raised in this regard are all false. He further submits that the 1st respondent has immediately acted in compliance with the interim order of this Court. 6. Whereas, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent argued that, the 2nd respondent has also filed counter stating that this respondent corporation has proposed for development of 40 ft. Master Plan Road from Raghavendra Nagar Circle at Sy.No.484 of Tirumala Bypass Road to Akkarampalle Road, opposite Prakasam Park passing through Sy No.97, 98, 93 of Akkarampalle village accounts and Sy No.699 and 484 of Tirupati village accounts as per Master Plan approved in G.O.ms.No.112 Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department dated 8.3.2019, and Municipal Corporation has approved the development of the Master Plan Road vide C.R No.200 dated 8.8.2023. Learned counsel further submits that a news paper notification was issued on 31.08.2023 for survey and demarcation of the properties affected in the road. Draft notification of the Master Plan Road was also issued on 30.08.2023 calling for objections from enjoyers of the sites/buildings affected in the Master plan road but the petitioner has not submitted any document related to the subject property. As the land belongs to Municipal Corporation, issue of notices in respect of properties in Sy.No.484 does not arise. He further submits that in fact there is no demolition of the house of the petitioner as alleged by them. In fact a road was laid before the house of the petitioner. Since there is a vehicular movement in 4 the road, the petitioner under the wrong notion that officials have come for demolition of her house and got filed the contempt case. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents has drawn attention of this Court to the Statement of 1st petitioner-Smt Chennuri Lakshmi Jyosna, W/o Thulasidhar, dated 11.10.2023, wherein it is stated as under: “…I filed Contempt Case in the Hon'ble High Court that the Municipal Corporation of Tirupati has brought some JCBs on 05-09-2023 and is trying to remove our building and thus they have violated the interim order of the Hon'ble High Court passed in W.P. No.17719/2023. After inquiring at the surrounding area, it is known that the Municipal Corporation officials did not try to remove our building, they are only trying form the master plan road. Therefore I agree to withdraw the CC No.5049/2023 filed in the Hon'ble High Court. The municipal corporation does not need to take any action on the court case have filed.” 8. On a perusal of the material on record, the 1st petitioner was died on 6.12.2023 due to health ailments. Thereafter the 2nd petitioner, who is husband of the 1st petitioner and his daughter and son have filed I.A.No.1 of 2024 on 7.2.2024 seeking to bring them on record as Legal representatives of the deceased-1st petitioner. This Court vide order dated 19.02.2025 allowed the said application and the proposed petitioners No.2 to 4 are came on record. 9. Moreover, on noticing the statement of the 1st petitioner as mentioned above, it is observed that, on 11.10.2023, the 1st petitioner herein has agreed to withdraw the present Contempt Case and the 2nd petitioner who is husband of the 1st petitioner has also signed on the statement. But the legal representatives of the deceased-1st petitioner were brought on record is nearly after two years of filing of the statement by the 1st petitioner-deceased. It appears that the 5 proposed petitioners came on record only to drag on the matter. In view of the above, this Court deems fit to close the present contempt case. 10. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed. No costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed. ____________________________ DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J. Date : -03-2025 Gvl 6 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO CONTEMPT CASE No.5049 of 2023 Date : 07 .03.2025 Gvl