ORDER:

The petitioner being aggrieved by the steps taken by the Repalle Municipality to take over his property for the purposes of road widening from Pedda Masjid center to Ankamma Chettu centre had approached this Court by way of W.P.No.6933 of 2022.

2. It was the contention of the petitioner, in the said Writ Petition, that the petitioner had initially agreed to take TDR bonds as compensation for the land being given up by him. However, he has subsequently decided not to take TDR bonds and sought compensation by way of payment of money. Aggrieved by the refusal of the municipality in accepting such a change in the form of the compensation. The petitioner had approached this Court by way of the above Writ Petition.

3. On 19.07.2022, this Court had granted Status-quo existing as on that day.

4. The petitioner has now approached this Court by way of the present Contempt Case contending that the respondents have changed the nature of the land and had laid the road after 19.07.2022, in violation of the directions of this Court.

5. Sri A.K. Kishore Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the order of Status-quo granted by this Court prohibited the respondents from undertaking any change in nature of the land including the laying of any road over the said land. He would further submit that in such circumstances, there is clear violation of the directions of this Court.

6. The order of this Court passed on 19.07.2022 is as follows:

“Status quo obtaining as on today shall be maintained with regard to the subject land.”

7. This order was passed in the light of the prayer of the petitioner that the respondents-municipality should not be permitted to interfere with the petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land.

8. In view of the said prayer, the order of Status-quo granted by this Court would only relate to Status-quo with reference to possession.

9. The petitioner has produced photographs to show that work was being done on the land as on 21.07.2022 and 14.08.2022. These photographs would show that steps are being taken to widen the road even as on that day.

10. The respondents have now filed a counter-

affidavit stating that the land had been handed over by the petitioner and that work had been taken up by the time the order of this Court had been passed.

11. The Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently denies any suggestion of voluntarily handing over the land by the petitioner.

12. Without going into the question whether the land was handed over or was taken without following due process of law, the fact would still remain that the respondents- municipality had taken over the possession of the land by the time the order of this Court had been passed.

13. In such circumstances, it cannot be held that there is any violation of the directions of this Court. However, it would be open to the petitioner to agitate his rights for payment of compensation for the land which has been taken over from him.

14. Accordingly, this Contempt Case is dismissed.

There shall be no order as to costs.

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

____________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J

19.07.2023 KPV HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO CONTEMPT Case No.2994 of 2022

19.07.2023 KPV