Vacant Natham land falls outside directions to remove encroachments from water bodies and temple lands.

The petitioner sought contempt action under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, alleging wilful non-compliance with the order dated 23 August 2022 in W.P. No. 34552 of 2018.

In that order, the Court had directed the authorities to survey the lands in question, fix their boundaries, and remove any encroachments found through due process.

The petitioner alleged that encroachments in Survey Nos. 221/11 and 221/13 had not been removed.

The authorities reported that the encroachment in Survey No. 221/11 had been removed and that Survey No. 221/13 was classified in the Government A Register as vacant Natham.

The Correlation Register showed that old Survey No. 78/1A had been subdivided, including into Survey Nos. 221/11 and 221/13, with Survey No. 221/13 described as vacant Natham.

1. Whether the authorities wilfully disobeyed the order dated 23 August 2022 by failing to remove the alleged encroachments in Survey Nos. 221/11 and 221/13.

2. Whether Survey No. 221/13, classified as vacant Natham, fell within the scope of the earlier order concerning encroachments on water bodies and temple lands.

The petition invoked Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act to seek punishment for alleged disobedience.

The Court applied the terms and scope of its earlier order, which required the authorities to survey the lands, identify any encroachments, and remove them through the process prescribed by law.

The Court’s reasoning also relied on the nature of the lands covered by the original proceedings: the order addressed alleged encroachments on water bodies and temple lands, rather than land classified as vacant Natham.

The Court found that the reported encroachment in Survey No. 221/11 had been removed, satisfying the earlier direction in respect of that land.

Although the Correlation Register linked Survey No. 221/13 to the old survey number identified in the original petition, the Register classified it as vacant Natham.

Since the earlier order concerned encroachments on water bodies and temple lands, the Court held that Survey No. 221/13 did not fall within its scope.

Accordingly, the alleged failure to remove an encroachment there did not establish disobedience of the order.

It closed the contempt petition.