Geddam Laxmi, W.G.Dist. And Another v. K. Sudhakar, W.G.Dist. And Another

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY C.C.No.1765 of 2016 in W.P.No.11337 of 2013 Date: 23.11.2018 Between:

Smt.Geddam Laxmi, W/o.Mallikharjuna Rao, Hindu, Aged about 40 years, Occ: Agricultural Cooli, R/o.Balajinagar, Venkatapuram Gram Panchayat, Eluru mandal, West Godavari district and another.

...

Petitioners And Sri K.Sudhakar, S/o.not known, District Panchayat Officer, Eluru, West Godavari district and two others.

...

Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners :

Mr. S.Syam Sunder Rao Counsel for the Respondents: Mr.K.K.Durga Prasad for R2 The Court made the following:

Order:

This contempt case is filed alleging willful disobedience of order dated 16.04.2013 in W.P.No.11337 of 2013.

2. On considering the respective pleadings and the material on record, this Court prima facie opined that respondent No.2 has violated the order of this Court, by getting the house belonging to the petitioners, demolished. In order to purge contempt, respondent No.2 has taken permission from the court to rebuild the demolished structure. On earlier occasion, Respondent No.2 has filed photographs showing construction being under progress. Today, the learned counsel representing respondent No.2 submitted that his client has filed compliance affidavit vide U.S.R.No.98819. 3.

The Registry is directed to put up on file, a copy of the said compliance affidavit along with the photographs, based on which the learned counsel for respondent No.2 shows that the latter has reconstructed the house satisfactorily.

4.

The learned counsel for the petitioners while admitting that the house has been reconstructed, however, submitted that certain patchworks remain to be done and that his clients have no objection to close the contempt case.

5.

Inasmuch as respondent No2. has taken remedial measures, having demolished the building in violation of the orders of this

Court, he has purged the contempt. Therefore, I do not intend to proceed with the contempt case further.

6.

The contempt case is accordingly closed and the respondent No.2 is discharged from the contempt proceedings. 7.

As a sequel to the disposal of the contempt case, I.A.No.1 of 2017 (C.A.No.64 of 2017) and I.A.Nos.2, 3 and 4 of 2018 are disposed of as infructuous.

__________________________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) Date: 23rd November, 2018 msb