CC/1750/2011 of B.Sashikala Vs Mr. Pankaj Dwivedi, on 30 December 2011

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAOAND

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA

CONTEMPT CASE No.1750 of 2011

Dated:30.12.2011

Between:

B.Sashikala .. Petitioner

And

Mr.Pankaj Dwivedi and others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAOANDTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA

CONTEMPT CASE No.1750 of 2011

ORDER:(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao)

The petitioner sued the Government of Andhra Pradesh fordeclaration of title and possession of land admeasuring 1082square yards allegedly covered by Municipal No.8-2-602/2/A, situated at Road No.10, Banjara Hills,Hyderabad. In the said suit they also filed I.A.No.3085 of 2008 forad interim injunction restraining the Government and its agentsfrom alienating or changing the nature of the land or allotting ortransferring the land in any manner. The same having beendismissed, they filed C.M.A.No.560 of 2009. By an order dated20.01.2010, this Bench dismissed the said C.M.A. This Benchobserved therein that in view of the statement made by the learnedGovernment Pleader that there was no such proposal to developthe land or allot to any third parties, the Government was advisedto take steps to protect the lands.

In the affidavit accompanying the present Contempt Case,the power of attorney holder of the sole plaintiff alleges that therespondents/defendants have allotted the land to the AndhraPradesh State Agro Industries Development Corporation vide letterdated 09.08.2011 and a ground breaking ceremony was alsoperformed by the Hon’ble the Deputy Chief Minister and theconcerned Hon’ble Minister.

Therefore, the petitioner alleges that the same is in violation of theobservations made by this Court in the order in C.M.A.No.560 of2009.

We have heard Sri S.Balchand, counsel for the petitioner. We are not able to persuade with the submissions made acrossthe bar except making an observation that the Government shouldprotect the land and recording the submission made by thecounsel for the petitioner, no order was passed. But it was allegedthat during the trial, the respondents are trying to allot theland/allotted the land to the Andhra Pradesh State Agro IndustriesDevelopment Corporation. It is a new cause of action. It isalways open to the petitioner to move appropriate application orapplication under Section 94 and relevant order of the Code ofCivil Procedure Code, 1908 to protect and maintain status quo withregard to the plaint schedule property. Except making theobservation, we do not find any reason to admit the ContemptCase.

The Contempt Case, with the above observations, isdismissed.

_______________

(V.V.S.RAO, J)

_____________________

(B.N.RAO NALLA, J)

30.12.2011

Note:- Dispatch order copy within three days (B/o) KH