HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CONTEMPT CASE No.949 OF 2008 DATED:12.11.2009 Between: Smt.M.Eeramani .. Petitioner And Smt.Neetu Prasad, I.A.S., the Joint Collector and Additional District Munsif Magistrate, Nizamabad Distrist and others .. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CONTEMPT CASE No.949 OF 2008 ORDER: Petitioner is resident of Dubba, Nizamabad District. Her husband was assigned land in Survey Nos.145/12 and 145/14 of Suddapally Village in Nizamabad District. It is her case that a supplementary Setwar was also issued to that effect. However, the Joint Collector, Nizamabad, by proceedings dated 11.05.2007, cancelled the proceedings whereunder land was assigned and also ordered for cancellation of supplementary Setwar. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner filed W.P.No.16246 of 2007. She also filed W.P.M.P.No.20661 of 2007 for suspension of the order of the Joint Collector. By an order dated 07.08.2007, this Court suspended the order impugned in the writ petition. In this Contempt Case, petitioner alleged that on 26.06.2008, when the tractor engaged by her for ploughing the land was working, the subordinates of the respondents stopped the tractor and prevented her from ploughing the land. Therefore, the petitioner filed the present Contempt Case alleging interference by the respondents. The Joint Collector filed a counter affidavit opposing the Contempt Case with regard to the allegation that petitioner was prevented from ploughing the land. In paragraph No.3 of the counter affidavit, it is stated as under. … It is submitted that though the contempt petitioner was assigned land to an extent of Acs.3.00 gts., in Sy.No.145 P.P. situated at Suddapally Village of Dichpally Mandal vide Tahsildar, Nizamabad file No.A5/331/1979, dated 18.04.1979 treating the old Sy.Nos. as Govt., land. The Supplementary Setwar was issued allotting the Sy.No.145/12 extent of Acs.2.30 guntas by the Asst. Director (S&LRs), Nizamabad. During the spot inspection and verification of old records, it is found that the old Sy.No.217/4 which was patta in the name of Sri Mohd.Sab Wakeel was given new Sy.No.145/PP as Govt., land erroneously. Therefore, the assignment made is not found to correct. Since old Sy.No.217/4 was patta land and the land was in physical possession of Sri Venkat Reddy Purchaser. It is also found that the contempt petitioner is never in physical possession over the assigned land. However, it is decided to consider for assignment of Govt., land to the contempt petitioner an extent of Acs.3.00 gts., at Yanampally Village of Dichpally Mandal in alternate. In the meanwhile, the contempt petitioner under the guise of Hon’ble High Court interim direction, dated 07.08.2007 tried to plough the land under dispute. It is not correct that the instructions were given to the Revenue Inspector, V.R.O., to stop the plough by the contempt petitioner and no orders or instructions were issued to the contempt petitioner not to plough the land. The contempt petitioner is never in physical possession over the land since assignment has been made. From the above averments, three things become clear. That by proceedings, dated 18.04.1979, Tahsildar, Nizamabad, assigned Ac.3.00, in Survey No.145/PP to petitioner treating the land as Government land. During spot inspection, however, it was found that old Survey No.217/4 was patta in the name of Mohd. Sab Wakeel and, therefore, the assignment was erroneous and incorrect. Secondly, the petitioner was never in possession of the land and that it is now decided to assign an extent of Ac.3.00 at Ellampally Village of Dichpally Mandal. Lastly, the Revenue Inspector and the Village Revenue Officer never stopped the petitioner from ploughing the land. The question whether the petitioner is in possession of the land is subject matter of the writ petition, which is pending. Therefore, in Contempt Case, it cannot be gone into. Insofar as the allegation that the subordinates of the respondents tried to stop ploughing the land, the same is denied. Therefore, it is not proper to pursue the contempt any further. The Contempt Case is, therefore, dismissed recording the counter averments as above. ______________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) 12.11.2009 KH