APHC010623902012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CONTEMPT CASE NO: 1485/2012 Between: 1. POKALA ANURADHA,, W/O ANJUNEYULU R/O VOORA CHERUV, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. SHRI SANGA RAVINDRA BABU, Commissioner, Ongole Municipality, (Presently Corporation) Ongole, Prakasam District. ...CONTEMNOR Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act 1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit file herein the High Court may be pleased this Hon'ble Court be pleased to summon the Respondent to this Hon'ble Court and punish them for Contempt of Court for intentionally violating the orders of this Hon'ble court passed in W.P.No.1928 of 2012 dated 27.01.2012 and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2012(APPL 762 OF 2012 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to implead B.Rambabu, Building Inspector, Ongole Municipality (Presently Corporation), Ongole as respondent No.3 in he main contempt case in W.P.No.1928 of 2012 in the interest of justice. IA NO: 2 OF 2012(APPL 4474 OF 2012 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased 2 IA NO: 4 OF 2012(APPL 5244 OF 2012 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased IA NO: 5 OF 2012(APPL 5657 OF 2012 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V R MACHAVARAM Counsel for the Contemnor: 1. M MANOHAR REDDY (SC FOR MUNC AND MUNC CORP ) The Court made the following: :: ORDER :: Heard Sri V.R.Machavaram, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The above contempt case is filed complaining about the non- implementation of the order dated 27.01.2012 in W.P.No.1928 of 2012. 3. The petitioner filed the above writ petition to declare the action of the respondents in trying to dispossess the petitioner from the house site in T.S.No.14/1, Ongole Mandal, without following due process of law, as illegal and arbitrary. The writ petition was disposed of on 27.01.2012, directing the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land in question of the petitioner, without following due process of law. 4. In the affidavit filed in support of the contempt case, it was pleaded that on 26.02.2012, the 1st respondent trespassed into the house site and demolished the house. The Petitioner gave a complaint to the I-Town Police Station, Ongole, on 26.02.2012 and also made representations. Thus, prayed to punish the respondents. 3 5. A counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondent. It was contended, inter alia, that the respondent directed the Town Planning Supervisor, Ongole Municipality, to submit a detailed report concerning the incident regarding the demolition of a small room, in T.S.No.14/1 of Voora Cheruv land. The respondent also addressed a letter to the Tahsildar, Ongole, to verify the records furnished by the petitioner, in the contempt case, and to furnish information regarding the issuance of DKT Patta and a no-objection certificate, whether genuine or not. The Tahsildar, Ongole, furnished a written information stating that the DKT Patta No.P36/1412F is not found in the D.K.Registrar. The D.K. patta bearing No.136/F1412, dated 30.06.2003 is fabricated by the petitioner. 6. The petitioner did not file any document in proof of the construction of the asbestos sheeted roof. In fact, on inquiry made it came to light that no such room existed in T.S.No14/1. The averment in the affidavit regarding demolition was specifically denied. 7. A rejoinder was filed by the petitioner to the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent. 8. Thus, as seen from the pleadings, there is a serious dispute regarding DKT patta relied upon by the petitioner and also the asbestos sheeted roof constructed by the petitioner. The news item published in the newspaper cannot be relied upon. It is not a piece of primary evidence. Since there is a serious dispute regarding alleged demolition, this court doesn’t find any violation of the order. Accordingly, the contempt case is closed. No costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 04.03.2025 SNI 4 177 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CONTEMPT CASE NO: 1485 / 2012 Date: 04.03.2025 SNI