IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI FRIDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO CONTEMPT CASE NO: 177 OF 2024 Contempt case U/s. 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act 1971 to Punish the Respondents herein for willfully violating and disobeying the Orders of the High Court dt.26.07.2023 in WP.No. 13726/2023. Between: Garapati Venkata Rama Krishna Rao, S/o.Late G.L. Narasimha Rao Age. 82 years, R/o.Villa No.64, Lakshmi Vihar, Phase-ll, Serilingampally, Hyderabad - 500 019. ...PETITIONER/PETITIONER AND Smt. D Haritha IAS, Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Tirupati, Tirupati, Balaji District. ...RESPONDAENT/2"^ RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. POPURI LAKSHMI PRIYANVITA Counsel for the Respondents: SRI. SUBBA RAO KORRAPATI The Court made the following: ORDER 1 APHC010021762024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3310] FRIDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE i'. PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO CONTEMPT CASE NO: 177/2024 Between: ...PETITIONER Garapati Venkata Rama Krishna Rao AND ...CONTEMNOR Smt D Haritha las Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.POPURI LAKSHMI PRIYANVITA Counsel for the Contemnor: 1.SUBBA RAO KORRAPATI 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.13726 of 2023, dated 26.07.2023. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner herein is the absolute of land admeasuring Ac 4.00 cents in Sy Nos.496/2C-1 at tirupati Urban and he is in possession of the same since 1981 and the same purchased under owner f 2 an Agreement of Sale, dt.23.09.1981 for a consideration of Rs.9,00,000/- from T.Venkata Muni Reddy and his brother T.Devanarayana Reddy. Originally T.Adisesha Reddy S/o.Chinna Muni Reddy, father of petitioner’s vendors,' has purchased an extent of Ac. 15.50 cents in Sy.No.496/2 of Tirupati Revenue Village in a public auction conducted by the Revenue Department on 14.03.1930 for Rs.9/-. He had a younger brother by name Venkatesam Reddy who pre deceased on 30.06.1940 without any male issue but with a daughter named Lakshmidevamma. The Adisesha Reddy had three wives. His first wife Ammayamma died issueless. His second wife Lakshmamma had daughter by name Kamalamma. His third wife Pedda Veeramma got two sons and one daughter by name Venkata Muni Reddy, Devanarayana Reddy and Saraswathamma. After the death of Adisesha Reddy, the land in Sy.No.496/2 was recorded in the name of Venkata Muni Reddy. Government has acquired extent of Ac.3.83 cents for road laying in Sy.No.496 and possession was taken on 27.03.1980. It is stated that Venkata Muni Reddy executed the Agreement of Sale with possession, dated 23.09.1981 in favour of the petitioner herein to which his brother Devanarayana Reddy also attested. The land was sub divided by Survey Department on 31.07.1982. an While so, the petitioner herein has filed OS No.201/1985 on the file of Principal Sub Judge, Tirupati for specific performance of the Agreement of Sale, dt.23.09.1981. It is stated that another suit was filed by the sons of Devanarayana Reddy in OS No.79/1985 seeking partition in the property in Sy.No.496/2. The petitioner herein was a party to that suit also. Both the suits were decided by the Principal Sub Judge, Tirupati on 31.12.1990 and the OS No.201/85 was decreed as prayed for and consequently, the OS No.79/85 was dismissed.. Against the Judgment and Decree in OS.No.201/85, an appeal was preferred by the defendants in AS No. 149/1991 on the file of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad and the same was dismissed on 25.06.1998. The Judgment in O S.No. 79/1985 has become final as no appeal was filed against the same. Further, against the Judgment in O.S.No.149/1991, an appeal was filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No. 16937/1998 by T.Devanarayana Reddy and the same was dismissed on 09.11.1998. Thereafter, the original court in OS.No.201/1985 has executed a Regd. Sale Deed in favour of the petitioner herein in Document No.2672/1999, dt.09.04.1999. Thus, the petitioner has been in possession of the subject land since 1981 and his title became.perfect by virtue of the Judgments mentioned above. It is stated that the Municipal Corporation suddenly laid a road on 02.06.2023 in petitioner’s land without acquiring the same and without taking any consent. Questioning the sam, the petitioner herein filed WP no. 13726 of 2023 before this Court and this Court vide respondent to not open the road for public use officially in the land of the petitioner’s property. However, the respondents did not take any steps to stop the use of the road. Hence, the contempt case came to be filed. 3. This Court, vide order, dated 26.07.2023, in W.P.No.13726 of 2023, has passed interim order, which reads as under; “...Considering the submissions on record, this Court prime facie finds that the balance of convenience therefore, the 2nd respondent is directed to not open the road for public use official y, w ic on 02.06.2023 in the land of the Petitioner Situated in Survey No.496/2C_l, Sivajyothi Nagar, p Urban, Tirupati, till the next date of hearing. For filing counters, post on 16.08.2023 ” nd order dated 26.07.2023 has grnated interim direction to the 2 of learned Senior Counsel and perusing the material available lies in favour Of the Petitioner, 4 4. Heard Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel representing Ms. P. Lakshmi Priyanvitha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Subba Rao Korrapati, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 5. On hearing, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, admittedly, the Tirupati Municipal Corporation has suddenly laid a Road on 02.06.2023 in petitioner’s land at Siva Jyothi Nagar, Tirupati without acquiring the same and without taking his consent. It is a high handed action on the part of the Municipal Corporation and the same is illegal and violative of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. Questioning the same, the petitioner herein earlier preferred WP.No. 13726/2023 before this Court and the same was disposed of vide order dated 26.07.2023, directing the Municipal Corporation not to open the Road for Public use officially. Having known to the said order, the respondents have not taken any steps to stop the use of the Road by the general public and the road is being used by the public. Learned senior counsel submits that the respondent has omitted to implement the order of the Hon'ble Court and the same is deliberate and intentional. Hence the C.C. No.5312/2023 has been filed before this Court and this Court has issued notice in Form-I in the above C.C., to the respondent herein for appearance in the Court. However, the respondent has represented before the Hon'ble Court through her counsel that the Road has been closed and the order of the Hon'ble Court has been implemented, enclosing photographs showing the erection of a wall blocking the flow of the traffic on the road. And by recording the same, this Court had closed the said Contempt Case by an order dt.24.11.2023. However, very strangely, the respondent herein has taken a stand in the counter filed in WP.No. 13726/2023 that the Corporation did 5 not lay any Road at all and the averments in the Writ Petition are not correct. He further submits that the respondent is taking diagonally opposite stands in the Writ petition and in the earlier Contempt Case. He further submits that, in the above mentioned CC, it was also mentioned that, though the road was closed for a short period, the wall constructed was removed later on and traffic is allowed to move on the road. It was on the basis of mis-representation made by the respondent herein that the earlier CC was closed and the respondent has played fraud before the Court. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner herein placed on record the photographs showing the traffic using the said road which shows the respondent has mis-leaded this Court forgetting the earlier CC closed. Therefore the respondent herein is liable to be punished not only for contempt of Court, but also for perjury. Therefore, learned senior counsel requests this Court to allow the present contempt case by punishing the respondent. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent opposed and prayed to close the contempt case as the respondent herein has not received any information with regard to removal of the wall by anybody and if there is anything happens, the same should be brought to the notice of the present Commissioner to take appropriate steps in this matter. Therefore, learned counsel prays to close the present contempt case. 7. Perusing the material papers and photographs which were produced by the petitioner herein. 8. On perusing the material on record, it is observed that, the interim order passed by this Court was on 26.07.2023. As stated by the respondent in her 6 counter that she worked as Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Tirupati up to 30.01.2024. So it is crystal clear that when this Court directed the 2 respondent in WP No. 13726 of 2023 i.e., the respondent herein is the competent authority. But now she stated that she did not receive any information with regard to removal of the wall by anybody, which is not at all acceptable and it amounts to Contempt of Courts Act. nd 9. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the firm view that the respondent has wilfully disobeyed the order passed by this Court dated 26.7.2023 in WP No.13726 of 2023 and thereby the respondent is guilty of contempt and has rendered herself liable for suitable punishment under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is allowed and the respondent/ contemnor is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one (01) month and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) in default of payment of fine, she shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one (01) week. The Contemnor/ respondent is directed to surrender before the Registrar (Judicial) High Court of Andhra Pradesh within two (02) weeks from today, on such surrender, the Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Andhra Pradesh is directed to remand her to jail for a period of two (02) weeks. 10. 12. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed. 7 13. After pronouncement of Judgment, Mr Subba Rao Korrapati, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent is undergoing training in “Mussoorie” upto 28.03.2025 and hence requested time for her surrender. 14. considering the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent, respondent is directed to surrender herself after completion of the training programmee in “Mussoorie” on 29.03.2025. Sd/- K TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER \ To. 1. The Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati. 2. D Haritha IAS, Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Tirupati, Tirupati, Balaji District. 3. The Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada, Vijayawada City. (RPAD) 4. The Superintendent of Police, Tirupathi, Balaji District.(RPAD) 5. The Section Officer, Accounts Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 6. The Section Officer, O.S Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 7. One CC to Smt. Popuri Laskhmi Priyanvita, Advocate [OPUC] 8. One CC to Sri. Subba Rao Korrapati, Advocate [OPUC] 9. Three CD Copies vna HIGH COURT DATED:07/03/2025 ORDER CC.No.177 of 2024 ■s' 13 MAR 2025 \ Co: Current Section . 5 ALLOWING THE CONTEMPT CASE