Sri Ramalingeswara Swamy Temple, v. Lanke Vijayalakshmi,

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY CONTEMPT CASE No.1041 OF 2015

O R D E R

This contempt case is filed alleging violation of orders dated 01.04.2015 passed in W.P.No.8745 of 2015 where in this Court granted status-quo order.

The present contempt case is filed by the petitioner who is the 4th respondent-temple in the writ petition stating that the possession of the subject property admeasuring Ac.0.35 cents in RS.No.57/1 was taken over by it vide panchanama in the presence of Revenue officials, Police officials and Endowment officials on 26.03.2015 by following due process of law. But under the guise of status-quo orders passed by this Court on 01.04.2015, the respondents have entered into the property highhandedly and erected temporary shed with plastic cover and polythene roof and covered the four sides with polythene covers, tin sheds and doors and started living there. Against the same, the petitioner gave a police complaint on 09.06.2015 to the SHO, Penamaluru P.S.

Though the same was registered, no action has been taken by the police on the ground that the writ petition is pending. Counter affidavit is filed by the respondents 1, 3 and 4 denying taking of possession by the petitioner, by the time of passing of interim orders by this Court on 01.04.2015. It is stated that they have collected some documents to show that the land does not belong to the temple. The averment that they have entered into the property highhandedly and erected temporary shed was also denied. The 1st respondent in the counter states that he is residing in the same house by keeping it in the same position though it was demolished partly. It is also stated that the 3rd respondent is not staying in the village itself after demolition of his house partly, by the petitioner-temple.

As far as the 4th respondent is concerned, he is the owner of the land admeasuring 190 sq.

way of three sale deeds and the petitioner-temple is claiming only 21 sq.yards out of 190 sq.yards of the 4th respondent, which is vacant from the beginning and still remains vacant without any structures and finally sought for dismissal of the contempt case. Counter affidavit is filed by the 2nd respondent denying taking of possession of the subject property by the petitioner by the time of passing of interim orders on 01.04.2015. The 2nd respondent also denied the averment that he has constructed a roof shed and opened a chicken shop therein. It is also stated that xerox copy of photograph attached to the counter is not visible to understand as to whether the said property belongs to him or not. He further states that present contempt petition is filed only to pressurise him and sought for dismissal of the same.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by the time of passing of interim orders by this Court on 01.04.2015, the petitionertemple has taken possession of the subject land by way of panchanama dated 26.03.2015. By virtue of the interim orders, the respondents once again came into possession of the subject property and with regard to the same, a complaint was also given to the police on 09.06.2015. She also submits that the 3rd respondent was very much present in the village on 09.06.2015 along with other encroachers and that she has also received the notice, when she came to her sister's house, who is residing in adjacent house. She also submits that respondent No.4 is claiming the property through unregistered sale deed executed by one Danekula Koteswara Rao, who was declared as an encroacher by the Deputy Commissioner in O.A.No.

204 of 2005. Against the same, when W.P.No.26089 of 2009 was filed, the same was disposed of with a direction to prefer an appeal before the Government. Accordingly, the vendor of the 4th respondent preferred a revision petition and the same is pending.

when the vendor of the 4th respondent himself was declared as encroacher, the 4th respondent cannot contend that the land does not belong to the temple.

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the affidavit filed in support of the contempt case is vague and no specific dates are given. He also submits that the respondents have not violated the status-quo orders passed by this Court as the 1st and 2nd respondents are in possession of the subject land prior to passing of the interim orders on 01.04.2015. He further submits that the respondents 1 and 2 are living in the subject property, though the same was partly demolished by the petitioner-temple.

As far as 3rd respondent is concerned, he is not residing in the village itself and as far as the 4th respondent is concerned, he submits that the 4th respondent has purchased the subject property through valid registered sale deeds from one Dhanekula Koteswara Rao and the land claimed by the 4th respondent is a vacant land and no constructions are being made therein. In support of all his contentions, he relied on judgment reported in Shiramsetty Saidulu v. Dantala Praveen[1]. It is to be seen that respondents 3 and 4 deny that they are in possession of the subject land, but no proof is shown to show that they are in possession of the subject land as on today by the petitioner. As such, it cannot be said that respondents 3 and 4 violated the orders passed by this Court on 01.04.2015.

As far as the respondents 1 and 2 are concerned, they simply dispute about taking of possession. As per the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner, when the vendor of the 4th respondent filed O.A., the same was disposed of declaring him as an encroacher. Against the same when he filed W.P.No.26089 of 2009, the same was disposed of directing him to prefer an appeal. Accordingly, he preferred a revision petition, which is still pending.

property. When the possession was taken over by the petitioner vide panchanama dated 26.03.2015 with the help of Revenue and Police officials and possession delivery certificates were also issued, it cannot be said that the respondents 1 and 2 are in continuous in possession of the subject property. Though the contempt case was adjourned several times giving opportunity to the respondents 1 and 2, the learned counsel for the respondents states that orders should be passed on merits. In this case, the possession delivery certificates clearly show that possession was taken over by the petitioner by way of panchanama dated 26.03.2015. As such, there is no reason to disbelieve the fact that it has taken possession of the subject property in the presence of Revenue and Police officials. When the respondents dispute the title of the petitioner, they would have challenged the same in appropriate forum.

In view of the above, this Court is of the view that the respondents 1 and 2 deliberately violated the orders passed by this Court and are liable to be convicted and sentenced to imprisonment under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Accordingly, the respondents 1 and 2 are sentenced for simple imprisonment one (1) month. The contempt case is accordingly allowed against respondents 1 and 2. However, this order shall remain suspended for a period of four (6) weeks from today enabling the respondents 1 and 2 to avail remedy of appeal. As regards respondents 3 and 4 are concerned, since it is stated that the 3rd respondent is not residing in the Village and as the property claimed by the 4th respondent is a vacant land, it cannot be said that they are in possession of the subject property. As such, the contempt case is dismissed against the respondents 3 and 4. The Registrar (Judicial) shall take necessary steps for execution of this Judgment under Rules 31 and 33 of the Contempt of Courts Rules, 1980. No costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed.

____________________________ A.RAJASHEKER REDDY,J Date: 12.10.2015 dv [1] 2014 ALD 200