The main legal point established in the judgment is that the violation of court orders and contempt of court can lead to legal consequences, such as fines or imprisonment, as per the Contempt of Courts Act.

ORDER

R. Raghunandan Rao, J. - Heard Sri K.S. Murthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri N. Ashwani Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B. Seshibhushan Rao, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The facts of the case according to the petitioner are as follows:

(a) The petitioner is the owner of 23,415 sq.feet and 960 sq.yards of land, which are contiguous to each other, in Sy.No.4069/3B Peddakapu Street, Ward No.13, Tirupati Municipality. The petitioner had constructed a theatre complex called M/s. Pratap Group Theaters, consisting of six theaters in two blocks, in this land. This property is bounded by two roads on the northern and western sides of the said plot. The northern road is called Jayasyam Road and the western road is called Gangamma Temple Road.

(b) On 02.03.2022, the Municipal Corporation, Tirupathi issued a notice to the petitioner stating that the Jayasyam Road is proposed to be widened to 60 ft and sought the consent of the petitioner for acceptance of TDRs, instead of cash compensation for the affected part of the petitioner's property.

(c) The petitioner being aggrieved by this proposal, had moved this Court, by way of W.P.No.7397 of 2022 and the same came to be disposed of on 28.03.2022 in the following terms:

'In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the submissions of both the learned counsel, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition, by setting aside the notices vide Roc No.2441/2020/G, dated 23.09.2020 and Roc No.1833/2018/G1, dated 02.03.2022 and directing the respondent authorities to issue fresh notice in accordance with law. Till such time, the respondent authorities are directed not to take any coercive steps with regard to the subject property'.

(d) The respondents, without issuing any notice, contemplated under the above order, demolished the footpath of a certain part of the compound wall of the petitioner on 03.02.2023.

(e) The petitioner apprehending further demolition and forcible taking over of possession, approached this Court, by way of W.P. No. 3256 of 2023, which was disposed of on 14.02.2023, with the following directions

'Therefore, recording the aforesaid submission made by the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2, on written instructions, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents 2 and 3 to follow due process of law in acquiring the property of the petitioner for public purpose of widening the road if all the said property is required for the said purpose. If the offer made by the 2nd respondent for allotment of TDR is not acceptable to the petitioner and if he does not give consent to accept the same, then the procedure contemplated under Section 147 of the Act to pay compensation is to be followed by the 2nd respondent. Till the said property is acquired by following due process of law, as directed supra, the respondents shall not demolish the said property of the petitioner or to dispossess him from the said property'.

(f) After these orders had been passed by this Court, the respondents 1 and 2, on 22.04.2023, sent their men and machinery to demolish the wall of the petitioner without initiating any of the action required under the above directions. The Managing Partner of the petitioner/deponent of the affidavit filed in support of the contempt case, rushed to the office of the 1st respondent, on 22.04.2023, along with the copy of the order of this Court dated 14.02.2023 in W.P.No. 3256 of 2023 and requested the respondents not to demolish the wall of the petitioner. However, the 1st respondent refused to entertain the request of the petitioner and did not even allow the petitioner to make out his case. On the next day, i.e., 23.04.2023, which is a Sunday, the respondents 1 and 2 carried out demolition of the entire compound wall of the petitioner despite protest by the Managing Partner of the petitioner.

3. Sri K.S. Murthy, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would s