1 APHC010087192024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CONTEMPT CASE NO: 1228/2024 Between: G Girija ...PETITIONER AND S.Ravi, Thasildhar and others ...CONTEMNOR(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. TATA SINGAIAH GOUD Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 1. NAGARAJU PULLAGURA 2. T BALASWAMI 3. T M K CHAITANYA The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: This Contempt Case is filed for willful violation of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.31860 of 2022 on 07.02.2023, wherein this Court passed the following order: “….In view of the same, this Court feels it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition by directing the Tahsildar to conduct survey of the subject property in the presence of the petitioner as well as the unofficial respondent Nos.6 to 8 and fix the boundaries; on an on-line application filed by the petitioner, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and take steps, if any encroachments found, as alleged by the petitioner, in accordance with law; within a period of four (4) weeks thereafter. Till such time, the respondents shall prevent the road margin encroachments in the ingress and egress of the petitioner’s subject property. 2. The respondent No.1 has filed a detailed counter stating that, in pursuance of the orders passed by this Court, the Mandal Surveyor, Gangadhara Nellore, conducted a survey on 01.10.2023 on the subject property in the presence of R&B authorities, the petitioner herein and unofficial respondents No.6 to 8 in the main writ petition. Thereafter, the Mandal Surveyor also submitted his report, wherein it was identified that the unofficial respondents No.6 and 7 have not encroached any portion of the land, particularly over the road margin opposite to the sawmill. Accordingly, a show- cause notice was issued by the then Tahsildar to respondent No.8 in the main writ petition under Section 7 of Act 3 of 1905 vide ROC No.A/122/2023 dated 13.12.2023, calling for an explanation as to why eviction proceedings in the subject property cannot be initiated against him. For which, respondent No.8 3 submitted his explanation on 27.12.2023, stating that there is a CC road with a width of 12 feet to reach the sawmill of the petitioner, and that the petitioner has no house except the house in subject property. He further stated that if he is evicted from the subject property, his family will become houseless and, as such, requested to drop the eviction procedure as against him and allow him to reside there in the subject property. However, the survey conducted on 01.10.2023 revealed that respondent No.8 had encroached upon the road margin to an extent of Ac.0.15 cents. As such, a notice under Section 6 of the Act 3 of 1905 was issued to respondent No.8 on 24.01.2024, directing him to evict the subject property within a period of 15 days. 3. While the matter being so, respondent No.8 in the main writ petition filed W.P.No.3701 of 2024 questioning the invocation of provisions of Section 7 and 6 of Madras Act 3 of 1905 for the summary eviction of the petitioner in respect of the property of an extent of Ac.0-15 cents in Sy.No.795, Gangadhara, Nellore Village & Mandal, Chittoor District, pursuant to the proceedings dated 24.01.2024. The said writ petition was allowed on 09.02.2024, which reads as follows: “Perusal of the notices impugned in this case would go to show that they were issued under Sections 7 & 6 of the Madras Act, 3 of 1905. In view of the observations made in the order referred to supra, the impugned notices vide Roc.No.A/122/2023, dated 13.12.2023 and 24.01.2024 issued by the 4th respondent are set aside with a liberty to the respondents to proceed as per the relevant provisions of the Act.” 4 4. It is further stated in the counter that due to recent transfers in respect of General Elections in Andhra Pradesh, respondent No.1 herein joined as Tahsildar, Gangadhar Nellore Mandal, Chittoor District, on 07.02.2024. After coming to know about the orders passed by this Court on 09.02.2024, respondent No.1 issued a fresh notice vide Roc.A/122/2023, dated 20.05.2024, to both parties as well as official respondent, for conducting a joint survey on 25.05.2024 at 11.00 a.m. The petitioner refused to take notice; however, the unofficial respondents received the said notice. Both parties attended the Joint Inspection, and accordingly, the boundaries for the petitioner’s landed property were fixed as per the inspection conducted in the village. It is found that there is a CC road with a width of 12 feet existing to reach the land of the writ petitioner. 5. In view of the fact that, pursuant to the orders passed by this Court, an initial survey was conducted and an eviction notice was issued to respondent No.8 in the main writ petition as he was found to have encroached upon the road margin opposite to the sawmill, challenging which, respondent No.8 has filed W.P.No.3701 of 2024 on 09.02.2024. The said writ petition was allowed by setting aside the impugned notices thereon. Subsequently, a notice was issued on 20.05.2024 to both parties for conducting a Joint Survey on 25.05.2024, which was refused by the petitioner. However, both parties attended the Joint Inspection, and thereafter the boundaries were fixed to the petitioner’s landed property. 5 6. In view of the same, this Court is of the opinion that the orders passed in W.P.No.31860 of 2022 dated 07.02.2023 has been complied with by the respondents. 7. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this petition, shall stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 05.02.2025 KGR