THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Contempt Case No.944 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner filed W.P.No.19938 of 2007 for a declaration that the inaction on the part of the respondents in issuing duplicate patta certificate, in D-Form, dated 24.05.1985, is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 29 of the Constitution of India. It was pleaded that the wife of the petitioner was granted patta, in respect of the land mentioned therein, and original thereof, was lost and wife of the petitioner since died. The petitioner, thereafter, approached the respondents with a prayer to issue duplicate patta certificate, or to enter his name as the successor of the pattadar. The Writ Petition was disposed of, at the admission stage, on 02.03.2009, directing the respondents to verify the matter and pass appropriate orders within the stipulated time. This Contempt Case is filed alleging that the respondents have not taken any steps in the matter. The 1st respondent filed counter-affidavit. It is stated that on verification, it has emerged that there did not exist any patta certificate, in respect of plot No.326 survey No.326/1 of Bandlaguda Village, Uppal Mandal, Hyderabad, said to have been issued on 24.05.1985. It is also mentioned that the signature on the copy of the patta submitted by the petitioner was compared with the undisputed signature of the Officer, who worked at the relevant point of time, and the same was found to be not genuine. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Revenue. The only relief granted to the petitioner was that the respondents shall verify the matter and decide whether, or not, to issue the duplicate certificate, or to treat the petitioner as successor of his wife, vis-à-vis the property. No specific order, as such, was passed by the respondents. However, in the counter-affidavit, it is mentioned, in detail, that the patta certificate relied upon by the petitioner, is fabricated one. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the respondents have committed any contempt. The contempt case is accordingly closed. In case the petitioner is entitled to any remedies in law, he shall pursue the same. ______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dated:17.08.2010 GJ