The Visakhapatnam v. Botta Someswara Rao

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA CONTEMPT CASE No: 4241 of 2023 Between; The Special Deputy Collector Land Acquisition, Steel Plant, Visakhapatnam. ...Petitioner/Respondent No.3 AND Bottasomeswara Rao ...CONTEMNOR Counsel for the Petitioner: 1 .Smt.S.SRAVANA SANDHYA Counsel for the Contemnor: I.Mr.A.K.KISHORE REDDY i NJSJ CC_4241 2023 The Court made the following Order: Alleging violation

14.11.2022 passed W.P.No.36762 of 2022, the present Contempt Case is filed.

#2. The respondent herein filed the above said writ petition seeking declare the action of the respondents therein in taking steps to dispossess him from property admeasuring an extent of 107 sq.yds., each in Plot Nos.561 and 560 in Survey No.23 situated at Appikonda Colony, Vadlapudi R.H.C., Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, without issuing any notice by following due procedure as contemplated under Law is in violation of Articles 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and for consequential direction to the respondents to desist themselves from taking any coercive steps in respect of the said property. This Court while adjourning the matter for filing counter- affidavit, granted interim directions dated 14.11.2022.

#3. Heard Mr.S.Lakshminarayana Reddy, learned counsel along Smt.S.Sravana Sandhya learned counsel petitioner Mr.A.K.Kishore Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent.

#4. Mr.S.Lakshminarayana Reddy, referring the various dates and sequence of events, made elaborate submissions by drawing the attention of this Court to the material on record. It is his main contention that despite the order of 'status quo’ dated 14.11.2022, the respondent / writ petitioner proceeded with the construction in the disputed property and the various e 3 NJS, J CC_4241_2023 photographs depicting the activity of construction on various dates, after the interim order dated 14.11.2022 would clearly establish that the respondent / petitioner had violated the interim orders and as such liable punishment under the Contempt of Courts Act. Referring to the averments made in the counter-affidavit filed in the Contempt Case, the learned counsel submits that the same runs contrary to the pleadings in the writ petition.

#5. In elaboration, he contends that in the Contempt Case, it was portrayed, as if the construction of the building was completed prior to 14.11.2022, that the building was already in the occupation of the respondent / writ petitioner and that no further construction was made after the order of ‘status quo’ dated

14.11.2022. In contradistinction, the learned counsel submits that nothing is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition dated 09.11.2022 about the construction undertaken by the petitioner, much less completion of the same as on the date of filing of the writ petition. He contends that the inconsistency in the pleadings cannot be improved by filing a reply. In this regard, the learned counsel had drawn the attention of this Court to the relevant paragraphs / assertions made by the respondent / writ petitioner in the writ petition and the Contempt Case including the affidavit dated

24.04.2024 after the Contempt Case was admitted on 21.03.2024. To buttress his submissions, the learned counsel places reliance on the decisions in Syed 4 NJS, J CC_4241 2023 Zameer v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer-1^ and Sri Sai Annadatha Polymers v. Canara Bank^.

#6. The learned counsel further submits that petition, the authorities / Special Deputy Collector filed a petition to vacate the interim order dated 14.11.2022 and this Court while granting time for filing reply

19.09.2023 directed that pending further orders, the writ petitioner shall not make any constructions in the subject matter property and maintain status quo existing on that date in all respects. He submits that in the meanwhile, as the respondent / writ petitioner was proceeding with the construction that too in violation of the order dated 14.11.2022, the petitioner herein lodged a complaint dated 26.06.2023 to the Inspector of Police, Duvvada Police Station and in view of the reply that as it is a civil dispute, the police cannot interfere, a notice dated 18.07.2023 was issued to the respondent inter alia, calling upon him to stop construction, more particularly in view of the orders of this Court dated

14.11.2022. He submits that despite the notice, respondent continued to carry on construction works in gross violation of the orders dated 14.11.2022 as also the subsequent orders dated 19.09.2023. Thus, the learned counsel submits that the respondent is guilty of not only the order dated 14.11.2022, but also the subsequent order dated 19.09.2023. Drawing the attention of this Court to the various photographs depicting the progress of works in the months of June, July and November, 2023, as also '2018(4) ALD353 ^2018(5) ALD 180 5 NJSJ CC_4241_2023 position / status of the premises in the months of February and March, 2024 while the matter is being heard by this Court, the learned counsel submits that a bear perusal of the said photographs would establish that there is a clear violation of the orders passed by this Court, that the respondent has respect to the orders passed by this Court. He also submits that the pen drive filed by the petitioner containing the recordings of the construction work carried on by the respondent after the orders of this Court, would make it amply clear that the respondent despite having the knowledge of the orders passed by the Court, proceeded with the construction works in utter disregard to the orders of the Court willfully and therefore, he is liable to be punished.

#7. On the other hand, Mr.A.K.Kishore Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent / writ petitioner contended that the order dated 14.11.2022 not violated as alleged. Referring to the averments made in the affidavit, the learned counsel submits that after the construction of the building, the respondent approached this Court and filed the writ petition. While stating that the photos filed by the Contempt petitioner are morphed, that the photos if any, which are nearby to the date after passing of the order dated 14.11.2022, have not been filed to substantiate the contention of violation of the order dated 14.11.2022, he submits that in fact, the respondent is not aware of the subsequent orders dated 19.09.2023. While denying the submission that the respondent had carried out the construction works in violation of the orders dated 14.11.2022, he contends that a perusal of the photographs filed behalf of the respondent, would go to show that the pillars were raised on 6 NJS, J < CC 4241 2023

25.08.2022, centering works were completed on 31.08.2022, slab was laid on

04.09.2022, works of aerocon brick walls was completed on 06.10.2022 and painting was completed by 30.11.2022. He submits that as the said works are already completed, the respondent also occupied the subject property and the contentions contra are not tenable. He submits that there are discrepancies in the photographs filed on behalf of the petitioner. He also submits that the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner that the respondent without obtaining permission, made constructions is without any valid basis. He submits that the Municipal Corporation of Visakhapatnam issued a Notice

10.10.2022 alleging that the respondent deviated from the approved by the Corporation dated 14.07.2022, and constructed the building which repels the allegation that after 14.11.2022, the respondent made constructions. He also submits that if the violation of the order dated

14.11.2022 was true, the petitioner would not have waited for such a long period of about nine months, without initiating the Contempt proceedings. He submits that though some statements- made in the writ petition and the counter-affidavit filed in the Contempt Case appears to be slightly different. the same was by oversight, without any intention and the respondent is tendering his unconditional apology. Making the said submissions, the learned counsel urges for closing the Contempt Case.

#8. This Court has considered the submissions made and carefully gone through the material on record. 7 NJS, J CC 4241 2023

#9. On an appreciation of the rival contentions, a charge is framed as to Whether acts of the respondent amounts to willful and deliberate violation of the order dated 14.11.2022 passed by this Court and if so, whether he is liable for punishment under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act? Point:

#10. Before answering the point under consideration, it may be noted that there is no dispute about passing of the orders dated 14.11.2022 and

19.09.2023 by this Court. Insofar as the Order dated 14.11.2022 is concerned while adjourning W.P.No.36762 of 2022 by three (3) weeks for filing counter of the respondents 'status quo'with regard to the subject matter property existing as on the said date was directed to be maintained by both the parties till then. Immediately, thereafter the official respondents filed the petition to vacate the stay order on 05.12.2022. In the counter-affidavitfiled along with the vacate stay petition, it is inter alia alleged that the writ petitioner created the fake documents, obtained Assessment Number from Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation (for short ‘G.V.M.C.’) that the subject matter land is reserved for communal purpose, demarked as ‘Gedda’. It is not in dispute that while granting time for reply, this Court passed the following orders dated

19.09.2023: “Pending further orders, petitioner not make any construction in the subject matter property and maintain status quo existing as on today in all respects.” 8 NJS, J CC 4241 2023

#11. Be that as it may.

#12. The learned counsel for the petitioner while pointing out the variations in the statements / assertions made in the affidavits filed in the writ petition as also in the Contempt Case by the respondent contended that though the construction of the building was not completed by 14.11.2022, the respondent / writ petitioner sought to project that the building was already constructed and it was already occupied. At this juncture, it may be pertinent to note that the material on record would go to show that the G.V.M.C., issued a Building Permit Order to the respondent on 14.07.2022. As seen from the same, the permission is for Ground + 1 residential building. So, the construction of the building can be said to be completed only after the 1 floor is laid, the entire works i.e., internal / external are carried out and ‘Occupancy Certificate’ in respect of the building, if any, is granted. Even going by the statements made in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent in the Contempt Case, the construction of walls of the entire building with aerocon bricks was completed by 26.10.2022 and he occupied the building by the date of status quo order dated 14.11.2022, if really that was the position as on the date of filing of the writ petition on 09.11.2022, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner herein, the said aspect would have been categorically stated in the writ affidavit. A close reading of the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, would clearly denote that there is no whisper about the construction activity, let alone completion of the building. On the other hand, the grievance ventilated was that the respondents therein are trying to e 9 NJS, J CC 4241 2023 dispossess the writ petitioner from Plot Nos.560 and 561. The submission that the variations in the statements in the writ affidavit and the counter affidavit are by oversight, obviously was made with a view to get over the Contempt proceedings and same deserves no appreciation. Be that as it may.

#13. Assuming that if the construction is completed by 14.11.2022, and further construction was made pursuant to the order of status quo as stated in the counter affidavit dated 03.10.2023, the question of proceeding with the works after 14.11.2022 or 19.09.2023, would not arise at all. However, the photographs dated 19.07.2023 and 18.11.2023 would make it clear that the construction works are going on, despite the order of status quo granted by this Court. Apart from the same, the photographs dated 01.02.2024 would undoubtedly goes to show that after the building was partially completed, the respondent intended to let out the same and in fact, succeeded in doing so by March 14, 2024. Thus, though the petitioner stated that no construction was carried out after the order of status quo dated 14.11.2022 and he is occupation of the premises, he has put in possession some third parties, despite the status quo orders. Therefore, the petitioner is guilty of violating not only the order dated 14.11.2022 but also the subsequent order dated

19.09.2023. At this juncture, it may be relevant to mention that this Court passed the Order dated

19.09.2023, after hearing both sides and the submission that the respondent is not aware of the said orders, cannot be countenanced. In fact, this Court has passed a detailed order dated

21.03.2024 at the time of admitting the Contempt Case. Even assuming that 10 NJS,J ^ CC 4241 2023 the respondent was not aware of the order dated 19.09.2023, he could have taken steps atleast for getting the tenants vacated, who are put in possession of the premises in question when the order of status quo is in operation. The respondent has not shown any inclination in that direction. Therefore, the only irresistible conclusion that can be arrived at is that respondent / writ petitioner had no respect or regard to the orders passed by this Court.

#14. Coming to the plea that the photographs filed by the petitioner are morphed the same, this Court has no hesitation to hold that it is an desperate attempt to somehow escape from the contempt proceedings. The material on record, the acts and the conduct of the respondent undoubtedly drives home the point against him.

#15. Considering the matter in entirety, this Court concurs with the submissions made that the respondent had acted in utter disregard to the orders of status quo dated 14.11.2022 passed by this Court and willfully and deliberately violated the same. Therefore, he is found guilty of the charge framed against him and as such, liable for punishment under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act.

#16. Accordingly, the respondent / writ petitioner is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two (2) months. He shall also pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) within a period of two (2) weeks. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two(2) weeks. 11 NJS, J CC 4241 2023

#17. The order passed by this Court shall remain suspended for a period of two(2) weeks.

#18. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is allowed. No order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/- M RAMESH BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To,

#1. Bottasomeswara Rao, S/o.‘Xppalanaidu, Aged about 36 years, R/o. D. No. 30-91-31, Appikonda Colony, Vadlapudi R.H. Colony, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam.

#2. One CC to Sri. S Sravana Sandhya, Advocate [OPUC]

#3. One CC to Sri. A K Kishore Reddy, Advocate [OPUC]

#4. Three CD Copies SAM J HIGH COURT DATED: 12/11/2024 ORD^R CC.nV4241‘ 04 2023 & V \ V X s ^ * 15 NOV 202^1 \ ^ . Current Section . \ [/ ALLOWING THIS CONTEMPT CASE WITHOUT COSTS >4' ■-.