Point of Law: Disobedience of orders of the Court strikes at the very root of the rule of law on which the judicial system rests.

ORDER :

1. Heard learned counsel for petitioners Sri M.V.Hanumantha Rao, learned standing counsel for first respondent Sri N Praveen Kumar and learned counsel for second and third respondents Sri P.Rama Sharan Sharma.

2. According to petitioners Sri P.Yellaiah is owner of total extent of Ac.2.00 guntas in Survey No. 764 (part) situated opposite to Teachers Colony, Bhongir town, Yadadri Bhongir district, out of which they purchased Ac.1.00 guntas vide registered document dated 17.4.2013. Petitioners filed WP No.18238 of 2019 alleging that unofficial respondents though unconnected to the subject land, fraudulently obtained building permissions from the Bhongir Municipality and started unauthorised construction over their land and that the Commissioner, Bhongir Municipality without issuing any notice to petitioners and without verifying the documents granted said building permissions.

3. This Court having considered the rival contentions, granted interim order on 23.8.2019 directing the respondents 5 and 6 therein not to make any construction and further directed Commissioner, Bhongir Municipality to ensure that no construction is made by respondents 5 and 6. Alleging violation of said orders, this Contempt case is filed.

4. First respondent filed counter affidavit denying the allegations made by petitioners. It is stated that after clarification from HMDA vide its letter dated 20.11.2018, building permissions were granted by the Municipality to Mr Ritesh Kumar Sahu on 4.1.2019 and Mr Kolla Gangadhar on 17.1.2019. It is further stated that pursuant to interim orders of this Court, notice dated 27.8.2019 was issued to 5th and 6th respondents in writ petition directing them not to make any further construction. Along with counter affidavit photos taken on 27.8.2019 showing the status of the building were filed. In so far as 7th respondent is concerned it is stated that he is making construction as per sanctioned plan.

4.1. In the additional counter affidavit first respondent deposed that though intimation letter dated 27.8.2019 was issued to respondents 5 and 6 not to make any further construction, during the covid 19 pandemic situation, unofficial respondents completed the construction and residing therein. It is further stated that notices under Section 174 (4) and 178 (2) of Telangana State Municipalities Act, 2019 and Section 23 of HMDA Act, 2008 dated 11.2.2021 and 12.2.2021 and final notices dated 23.2.2021 were issued and in turn respondents submitted their reply dated 6.4.2021. It is further stated that questioning the final notices, WP Nos. 13068 and 12536 of 2021 are filed and said writ petitions are disposed of remanding the matter for passing fresh orders assigning valid reasons. Pursuant to said orders, hearing was conducted and orders were passed on 9.8.2021 and it was decided to impose penalty as per rules.

5. This court having regard to the submission of the learned standing counsel for respondent municipality that respondents 2 and 3 herein have undertaken construction activity even after the interim orders were passed, admitted contempt case and issued notice in Form I by order dated 10.12.2021.

6. Court was informed that second respondent sold the property to third respondent long before the interim orders were passed. Therefore, even if construction was carried on by the buyer who is not a party to the writ petition or to this contempt, the second respondent cannot be held guilty. Accordingly, by order dated 4.3.2022 contempt was closed against second respondent.

7. In the affidavit filed by Sri K Gangadhar-the third respondent, he would urge that from the reading of interim order, he understood that he should not undertake further construction, if there is no building permission, whereas he was having valid building permission, and thus, he undertook further construction. He would submit that by the time interim order was passed, construction was almost completed and he had only undertaken finishing work. He ho