THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CONTEMPT CASE No.111 of 2007 DATED 16.11.2009 BETWEEN: Potluri Brahma Reddy … Petitioner AND Mrs.T.K.Rama Mani, Deputy Collector and Mandal Revenue Officer, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. … Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CONTEMPT CASE No.111 of 2007 ORDER: The petitioner allegedly purchased an extent of Acs.0.36 guntas in survey No.44/1A and B situated at Munganoor Village of Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, under registered sale deed. When he was clearing the land, it appears the Mandal Revenue Officer raised objection and tried to interfere with the possession. Therefore, he filed W.P.No.27358 of 2006 for declaration and direction. The writ petition was disposed of on 05.01.2007 observing that petitioner’s right to enjoy the property cannot be disturbed unless and until the Mandal Revenue Officer takes appropriate action either under Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachments Act, 1905 (1905 Act, for brevity) or under Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (1977 Act, for brevity). The petitioner filed instant contempt case alleging that respondent lodged a complaint against petitioner’s brother on 29.01.2007 and on 01.02.2007 erected poles stating that it is a Government land. The petitioner denies that he has been dispossessed from the Government land and that the Government has not initiated any action against petitioner till the date of filing of contempt case and therefore, violated the orders of this Court. First respondent filed counter affidavit stating that Kundeti Laxmaiah, Domalapalli Lachumaiah, Paranda Achaiah and Domalapalli Mankaiah were assigned Government land in survey No.44/1 of Munganoor Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, to an extent of Acs.4.19 guntas, Acs.5.20 guntas, Acs.5.20 guntas and Acs.5.20 guntas respectively for agricultural purpose. The assignees changed the land use, converted into plots and sold to third parties. Therefore, action was initiated under the provisions of 1905 Act and 1977 Act and notice in Form-I was issued on 30.09.2003 to the legal heirs of assignees. After receiving the same, they put objections/representation denying the allegations. On due consideration, Mandal Revenue Officer passed orders on 29.01.2007 for resumption of land to the Government for violation of terms and conditions of assignment. It is further alleged that after passing orders on 29.01.2007, the land was taken under cover of Panchanama and handed over to Panchayat Secretary for protecting the lands. It is therefore stated that the petitioner is in no way connected with the lands assigned and he filed writ petition with false allegations. Learned counsel for petitioner made submissions. He contends that though allegedly order was passed on 29.01.2007 under 1977 Act, no notice was issued to petitioner, and therefore, the said order cannot justify the erection of board near the petitioner’s land. Nextly, he contends that when action was initiated on 30.09.2003, the same was not brought to the notice of this Court when the writ petition was disposed of on 05.01.2007 and therefore, no importance can be attached to the same. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue (Telangana Area) has placed before this Court the relevant file from the Office of respondent. While inviting the attention of this Court the notice in Form-I, the representation made by legal representatives of assignees and the order passed by Mandal Revenue Officer on 29.01.2007, he submits that the land was resumed on 29.01.2007 and therefore, petitioner cannot maintain the contempt case. According to him, the respondent has initiated and completed action as directed by this Court before taking possession of the land and if the petitioner is aggrieved, his remedy lies elsewhere. This Court has perused the file. As pointed out by learned Government Pleader, notice was issued to legal representatives of assignees. They made representation denying the allegations that they violated the provisions of 1977 Act. On consideration of representation, respondent passed orders on 29.01.2007 for resuming the land to the Government. In the counter affidavit, it is alleged that possession is taken which is strongly denied by learned counsel for petitioner. Along with contempt case, the petitioner has filed photographs showing the board fixed in the land that it is a Government land. But, there is a dispute whether the said land is fixed in the land admeasuring Acs.0.36 guntas, which the petitioner purchased under registered sale deed on 30.04.2006 or the same is fixed in the land admeasuring Acs.5.20 guntas in survey No.44/1 other than the land purchased by petitioner. Insofar as the justification is concerned, now that the Mandal Revenue Officer has passed an order. Even if it suffers from procedural impropriety for want of notice to petitioner and the likes of him, who were alienees from the assignees, the remedy lies elsewhere. The contempt case is not a proper remedy. This Court disposed of the writ petition observing that the right of petitioner cannot be defeated without following due process of law either under 1905 Act or 1977 Act. Now that an order has been passed under 1977 Act, the petitioner – whether he is a party to the said proceedings or not - may seek redressal by filing appeal under Section 4-A (1) of the 1977 Act or if so advised petitioner can even file a writ petition as he contends that no notice was issued to him before passing said order. The contempt case, subject to above observations, is dismissed. No costs. ______________ (V.V.S.RAO,J) 16.11.2009 pln