The High Court · 2025

Plr';[?t!il3',3*??,?31,1+lasDivisionarForestorricer,Bhadradri Sri M. Murali, Workino as Forest Range Officer Aswaraor,"* *rnn", Aswaraopet Bhadradii Kothagudem districi '-' il,i;,.3*i.J(Tig:*,In*3i^?;ff :l;3i:y,.","?r*r i5?#ff :ty,,iiI[%1i,i:E:',3,Ti,?fffi :bi:t?::?",iff Tnif; ;.,,",n", Forest Departmen t, ... Respondents Counsel for the petitioner:SRt pENUBALLI RAMESH BABU Counsel for the Respondent No.,l : Gp FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 : Gp FOR FORESTS The Court made the foltowing: ORDER THE HON,BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA co TE PT AS No 13 9 2 ORD E Heard Sri Ramesh Babu Penuballi' learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Forests, appearing on behalf of the respondent"

2. Complaining violation of the orders of this Court dated 06.03.2O25 passed in W'P'No'696O of 2025' the present ContemPt Case is filed' 3 A P RU ED HE EC RD:- T is u s of he P o 50 t2 25 6 2 25 t rti n bs rve asu nd er: - "The writ Petition is disPosed of respondents to follow due procedure ."tp".t to the petitioner's subject land'" Thec un ffidavit B filed on behalf oft dileptins undei law n No o e rac ed ereu nder: - "-uffiO-u"it,

5. In reply to the averments made in Para Nos' 5 & 6 of it is humbly submitted that the petitioner h;;; h;t encroached certain extent of the above sald i;;; ,;;;r" control of the Forest Department and with, cement constructed one temporary structure . rn""it i""fi"g with dimensions 50 feet length and 15 i""i*Otn *it-n walls of cement bricks in single layer and 2 -iZ.O1'.2022 started flower business in it for which the then Forest Range OfFicer, Aswaraopeta had irir"O noii."s, vide Notice No. 24/Aswaraopeta/2)2l, at, 14.03.2022 to rhe said petition;.-;;q;;;#s him ro submit documenrary evidences, ir ;.y;i;;;porr of the said encroachment done by him. arl'th"-;;httioner did not respond for the said notices anO r.iot-'filed any documentary evidences. Further it is iespectfully submitted that, in obedience of the above oiders, dt: 06.03.202s in W.p. No._6960 of 2O2s;"r;d by this Hon'ble High Court, the Responde.i frfr:-tf"[st Range 9lfi:,"" a111v91a_ooeta) has issued unoln"i ioirce, vioe ,.f:,. l! ?:.184 o 2s /,Asw pt, dt: 2 t.o 5.2025 to the petitio ner uuty tnrormtng the contents of the above orders of the Hon'ble High Court and also the notices, itl. i).oz.zozz & 14.03.2022 and tried to serve tne on the petitioner, but he refused to receive thl same. Acc-ordingly, a panchanama, dt: 21.05.2025 was 9i:l!"0 duty covering rhe fact of l."rrrur Ov rhe petitioner to receive the said notice and ai-sucn as a part of due procedure laid down under Law, Lvriction has been taken up in the presence of tunrildu., Aswaraopeta and police officials on OO.OO.ZO25 and removed the said illegally constrdcted temporary structure after entire belongings of the petitioner kept inside the said illegal structuie wu.e titen-out and handed over to him only under thq cover of Panchanama -iame - I Further contention of the petitioner that the Respondents have demolished the shop belonging to him only but beside his shop there are'two inops Out not demolished. In this context it is relpectfully submitted that the adiacent illegal occupie.s, namety (1) Sri Tagaram yesuratnam, s7o late 'rvijaian, 1z; Tagaram Tirupathaiah, s/o Nagaiah and (3) wl-nammaO Mukram Khan, s/o Hussaln Khan have'fiteO W.p. wo. 4774 of 2025 in which this Hon'ble High Court passed interim orders, dt: 79.O2.2025 1Cof,y enitoseO as Annexure-VIII) as follows. ORDER: / / I -) Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Forests seeks time to get instructions. Post after one ( 1) week in motion list' Lisl on 27.02.2025. Till then, both Parties are quo existing as on todaY propertY. directed to maintain with regard to the status- su bject In this regard, I respectfully submit that.the above orders of status quo granted by this Hon'ble High Court O"i.g maintaine-d as of now also' Further it is [r*orv ,ibritt"d that a detailed counter affidavit along "r"- witn vicate stay petition in W'P' No' 4774 of 2025 has Ue"n fiteA before this Hon'ble High Court on 20'03'2025 ..J tn" same is pending for adjudication before this Hon'ble High Court and 5s such the contention of the p"tittn"t inut tn" Respondent authorities demolished [; ;h;p only bv leaving adjacent two shops is for the ouroose of maintaining the contempt petition only and 5frJi" S.i" sympathvirom this Hon'ble High Court and to iruut6 panit among the Forest ofFicials who are a Law abiding Government servants bounden to implement the orders of the Hon'ble judiciarY' It is further submitted that after the evlction of the petitioner from the subject property on..06'06'2025' irrn"Jiutufy within thres (3) days, the petitioner doing ln" no*"t business from a portion of the same place by in.tuffing four wooden poles covered by a tarpaulin roof lf prtt'i-ro two tables and arranged iron mesh on the Oick siOe and he is continuing his business from the ruiJ po.tion even today. The petitioner has concealed in" .lr" before this Hon'ble Court' I am herewith filing it',e pnotograph for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court' L I NA I ISC 4. Learned Government Pleader for Forests appearing on behalf of the respondents placed reliance 4 issued on the averments made in the counter affidavit fited on behalf of the 5th respondent(referred to and extracted above) and contends that the petitioner had encroached into certain extent of the subject land, which is under control of the Forest Department and constructed one temporary structure with cement sheets and the then Forest Range Officer, Aswaraopeta notices, Notice No.24lAswaraopeta/2O2L, dated 22.OZ.ZO2Z and L4.O3.2O22 to the petitioner to submit documentary evidences, if ?try, in support of the petitioner,s encroachment, but the petitioner did not respond to the said notices nor filed any documentary evidences. The learned Government pleader for Forests eppearing on beharf of the respondents further submiti that in obedience of the above orders, dated 06.03.2025 passed in W.p.No.696O of 2O25, the Forest Range Officer, Aswaraopeta had issued another notice, vide Lr.No.78l2025/Aswpt, dated 2t.OS.ZOZS to the petitioner, but however the petitioner had refused to receive the same and accordingly, panchanama, dated 2L.O5.2O25 was drafted, duly covering the said fact of \ "--J ( - 1 5 refusal by the petitioner to receive the said notice and as per due procedure taid down under law, eviction had been taken up in the presence of Tahasildar, Aswaraopeta and Police Officials on O6.O6'2O25 and the said illegally constructed temporary structure of the petitioner had been removed after taking out all the belongings of the petitioner, which had been kept inside in the illegal structure, and al! the said things had been handed over to the petitioner under the cover of panchanama and therefore, the plea of the petitioner that the due procedure under law had not been followed is false, and there is no disobedience of the orders of this Court dated 06.03.2025 passed in W.P.No.6960 of 2025 as alleged by the petitigner.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner however disputes the said submission made by the learned Government Pleader for Forests appearing on behalf of the respondents and submits that no notice had been issued to the petitioner by the respondents before demolishing the structures, hence, the respondents are liable for contempt. 1 \ K-.J \ - 6

6. Taki n st er ti a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Government pleader for Forests appearing on behalf of the respondent. c) The averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent in particutar para No.5 (referred to and extracted above) d) The order of this Court, dated 06.03.2O25 passed in W.P.No.696O of 2O25 (referred to and extracted above) This Court opines that there is no contempt on the part of the respondent in comptying with the orders of this Court dated O6.O3.2O25 passed in W.p.No.696O of 2O25 and accordingly, the contempt case is ctosed. However, there shatt be no order as to costs. SD/- T TIRUMALA DEVI EPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. One CC to SRI PENUBALLT RAMESH BABU, Advocate [OpUC] 2- Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana at 3. Two CCs to GP FOR FORESTS, High Court for the State of Telangana at louTl

4. Two CD Copies W ADK l I t- .I '{E SI,4 i o(J )- n S3 0c .y -,1- ( a) i: I HIGH COURT DATED:2210812025 ORDER CG.No.1329 of 2025 CLOSING THE CONTEMPT CASE WITHOUT GOSTS 1 g q Lt