High Court for State of TelanganaCC/1499/2016closed no costs

Smt. P.Suseelamma v. Sri Y.Satyanarayana,

2017-02-10C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy3 pages

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY CONTEMPT CASE NO.1499 OF 2016 DATED:10-02-2017 Between:

P. Suseelamma ... Petitioner And Y. Satyanarayana ... Respondent COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: Mr. A. Jayasankara Reddy COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr. Md. Saleem, Standing Counsel for Municipalities (AP) THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

CVNR, J CC 1499/2016 ORDER:

Feeling aggrieved by the alleged non-compliance of order dt.23.11.2015 in W.P. No.3230 of 2014, the writ petitioner filed this contempt case.

The grievance of the petitioner is that though a direction was issued by this Court to stop illegal constructions over the unauthorized layout developed by respondent Nos.3 and 4 in the writ petition, the respondent herein has failed to take any such action. In a detailed counter affidavit filed by the respondent it is inter alia stated that though respondent Nos.3 and 4 in the writ petition have developed the illegal layout, no constructions were made by them in the said layout, that two persons by name M. Srinivasulu and M. Jayaramaiah, who purchased the plots in the layout, have raised constructions, that when notices for demolition of the said constructions were issued, both of them have filed Writ Petition Nos.30861 and 30729 of 2016 respectively, that in W.P. No.30729 of 2016 filed by Mr. M. Jayaramaiah, interim stay of demolition was granted by this Court, which is in force, and that as regards W.P. No.30861 of 2016 filed by Mr. M. Srinivasulu, as no interim order was granted, the respondent has demolished the illegal construction on 03.11.2016.

The above noted averments in the counter affidavit, which remained uncontroverted, show that the respondent has partially implemented the order of this Court to the extent of which no interim order was granted by this Court and he is prevented from demolition of the structure raised by Mr. M. Jayaramaiah in view of the interim order of this Court. Hence, it cannot be said that the respondent has deliberately violated the order of this Court.

CVNR, J CC 1499/2016 The contempt case is accordingly closed.

_______________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 10-02-2017 bnr