No. 1486 of 2009 · Andhra Pradesh High Court

trying to demolish their shops situated at Sri Sai Baba Devalayam, without following the due process of law, filed the writ petition. Based on the submissions made by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents on instructions that the respondents would take steps in accordance with law, this Court by order dated

05.08.2009 disposed of the writ petition directing the respondents to take further action after following the due process of law. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the respondents in gross violation of the orders passed in the writ petition, without issuing any notice and without following the due process of law, demolished their shops and took away materials worth Rs.4,00,000/- available in the shops, and as such, they are liable for contempt. He placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Mohd. Moinuddin v. Dr. C.N.S.K. Sharma[1], to contend that demolishing the structures, without following due process of law, despite directions by the Court to that effect, amounts to deliberate obedience of the orders, and contended that since the respondents have deliberately not followed the due process of law as ordered by the Court, they are liable to be punished for contempt.

Hence, he prayed that the respondents be punished for contempt. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2-Corporation and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent No.3 and perused the material produced by them. This Court disposed of the writ petition directing the respondents to take further action after following the due process of law. Though the petitioners contend that the respondents in violation of the said order, demolished the shops, without following the due process of law, and to demonstrate that the respondents highhandedly without following the due process of law demolished the shops, filed notarized affidavits of four persons, who are residents of that area, the fact remains, it is the specific case of the respondent No.3, as is evident from the counter filed by him, that pursuant to the orders of this Court, he issued notices dated 10.09.2009 to the petitioners under Section 7 of the Land Encroachment Act, 1905 directing them to vacate the premises within seven days.

However, the petitioners refused to receive the same. Therefore, the Mandal Revenue Inspector, Pendurthi, who went to serve the notices on the petitioners, recorded the statement of the local people and affixed them on the walls. To evidence service of notice under Section 7 of the Land Encroachment Act, 1905 and refusal by the petitioners to receive the same and affixation of the same on the walls, respondent No.3 produced copies of the notices and the statement recorded by the Mandal Revenue Inspector, Pendurthi, on which the locals made their endorsement. As in spite of service of notice, by way of affixing them on the walls, the petitioners did not respond, respondent No.3 issued final notices dated 15.09.2009 under Section 6 of the Land Encroachment Act, 1905, and as there was no reply and as the petitioners failed to hand over vacant possession of the encroached land within seven days as specified in the notices, respondent No.3 with the assistance of the officials of respondent Nos.

1 and 2-Corporation, as is evident from the counter filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, demolished the structures and took possession of the land. This apart, it is stated by respondent No.3 in the counter that similar notices were issued to other encroachers, and that upon receiving the said notices, the said encroachers sought time to hand over vacant possession of the same. Respondent No.3 along with the counter also filed the notices issued to other encroachers. Thus the materials placed before this Court, which are supported by averments made in the counters, clearly go to suggest that respondent No.3 before proceeding to demolish the structures, had issued statutory notices to the petitioners under the Land Encroachment Act,

1905. Inasmuch as respondent No.3 before effecting demolition of the structures, issued notices to all the encroachers, including the petitioners, it cannot be said that respondent No.3 has not followed the due process of law and that the respondents have demolished the structures without following the due process of law, and thereby are liable for violation of the orders of this Court, warranting contempt action against them. The contempt case is devoid of merit, and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, since it is the case of the petitioners that respondent No.3 after demolishing the structures took away the materials that were lying in the shops at the time of demolition, respondent No.1 is directed to return the same, if any, lying with him. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: 27th January, 2010 KSR [1] 2009 (4) ALD 723