ORDER:

1) Heard Sri. Kumaresan Jodishwar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, and Sri. M. Manohar Reddy, Sri. Avinash Desai and Sri. T.V.S. Prabhakara Rao,learned Counsel for the respondents and perused the record.

2) The present Contempt Case came to be filed under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, for willful and deliberate violation of the Interim Order, dated 24.12.2018, passed in Writ Petition No.46822 of 2018, wherein, this court while adjourning the matter to 02.01.2019, ordered status-quo to be maintained in respect of the property, which is subject matter of dispute in the Writ Petition, until further orders.

3) A Writ Petition was filed seeking issuance of Writ of mandamus questioning the action of 2nd Respondent in issuing the proceedings, dated 06.09.2018, which speaks about handing over of site admeasuring 11.50 meters X 17.00 meters at Potti Sriramulu Municipal Shopping Complex in R.S. No. 417/62-A/2, at Circular Bazar to M/s. Nagarjuna Construction Company Limited [Respondent No. 3], for constructing Anna Canteen in place of an old municipal library, as illegal, improper and incorrect.

4) The grievance of the Petitioner, in the present Contempt Case, is that, in spite of the order of status-quo, the Respondents proceeded with laying of basement, construction of the compound wall, and Anna Canteen. According to the Petitioner, by raising the wall, the ingress and egress to the Petitioner’s house was totally impaired and her easementary rights are affected. According to the Petitioner, the photographs, dated 27.12.2018 and 09.02.2019, show violation of the order. It is stated that, the photograph, dated 10.06.2019, would establish Respondent No.2 and 3 continuing with the construction by raising structure for laying a R.C.C. roof with concrete for Anna Canteen. Having regard to the above, the present contempt case came to be filed.

5) Counters came to be filed by Respondent Nos.2 and 3 disputing the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the Contempt Case. In reply to paragraph no. 6 of the affidavit, Respondent No. 2 in his counter stated as under:

“9. In reply to 6, it is humbly submitted that the allegations that no survey was conducted is highlighted only for the purpose of this petition. When the property of Municipality is located by metes and bounds, there arose a necessity for demarcation and localization. Further, the dispute is not with regard to the identity, location and ownership of the property that belonged to the Municipality. The dispute is very narrow by creating an un-imaginary non-existing easementary rights across the property of the Municipality though the Petitioner has got 3 ways. Therefore allegations in para-6 are hereby denied.”

6) In reply to paragraph 13 of the affidavit, wherein, much reliance was placed on the photographs filed, it is stated in para

16 of the counter as under:

“16. In reply to para 13, it is humbly submitted that the photos filed, referred in para-13 do not represent the actual picture regarding the southern approach road. The photos were got snapped in such a way to elibate the false claim regarding either non-existence or non-exercise of right. The passage referred as approach road on southern side is situated in front of the house of the Writ Petitioner and it is the way for convenient enjoyment. The Government is not expected to provide easementary rights to anybody. Further, the document if any relied on by the Writ Petitioner, includes easementary rights. There does not exist private passages and Government passages. Any strip of property that is required for effective and convenient enjoyment of other property is defined as servant tenement. Therefore the right of easement cannot be confined alone to the Government property irrespective of the ownership of the property each and every person has got right of easement over others property. Therefore the contention that passage is in private land and not a Government land does not carry any le