IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.10340 of 2005 Between: Goluguri seshayamma & another. … Petitioners AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep., by its Secretary, Endowments Dept., Secretariat, Hyderabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners : Sri N.V. Anantha Krishna Counsel for respondents 1&2: AGP for Endowments This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.10340 of 2005 ORDER:- At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in furnishing incorrect information in a contempt case as if the orders were passed in the petitioners’ case through order dated 09.07.2003 in M.A.No.56 of 2003 while actually the said M.A. belongs to one Smt. Medisetti Laxmamma of Kudupuru Village, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice. The petitioners sought for consequential direction for issuing contempt proceedings against the respondents. The petitioners claim to be the cultivating tenants of an extent of Ac.2.85 and Ac.1.32 cents in Sy.Nos.432/1 and 436/2 respectively belonging to respondent No.3 temple. When attempts were made to dispossess the petitioners, they filed WP.No.9528 of 2003, which was disposed of at the admission stage on 13.05.2003 by permitting them to approach respondent No.2 for declaring them as landless poor persons. When the respondents sought to hold auction of leasehold rights, the petitioners filed CC.No.1135 of 2003, wherein the respondents stated that the petitioners’ applications were taken on file as M.A.No.56 of 2003 and that order dated 09.07.2003 was passed by respondent No.2 holding that they are not landless poor persons. Consequently, the contempt case was dismissed. The petitioners filed a revision petition before the Regional Joint Commissioner, Endowments against the order of respondent No.3 rejecting their claim of being small farmers. The said revision petition was dismissed by the Regional Joint Commissioner of Endowments on 25.11.2003. The petitioners questioned the said order in WP.No.27356 of 2003, which was dismissed on 21.01.2004. WA.No.1929 of 2004 filed against the said order was also dismissed on 10.12.2004. The petitioners filed the present writ petition alleging that the respondents made a thorough misrepresentation in the contempt case, namely, CC.No.1135 of 2003 and mislead the Court by saying that their case was disposed of, while the reference furnished by the respondents related to Smt. Medisetti Laxmamma and not to them and hence, the injustice done to them is required to be remedied. Having heard Sri N.V. Anantha Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record, I am of the view that this writ petition is thoroughly misconceived. If the petitioners are aggrieved by the incorrect information furnished by the respondents leading to the dismissal of the contempt case, they ought to have filed appropriate application in the contempt case. Admittedly, they have not availed this remedy. Further, the order passed by respondent No.2 rejecting the petitioners’ claim that they are the small farmers was not only affirmed in revision, but also in WP.No.27356 of 2003 and WA.No.1929 of 2004 passed by this Court. The orders of respondent No.2 and the revisional authority having thus been confirmed by this Court, the petitioners cannot maintain an independent writ petition to seek redressal of their grievances, because no order, which would run contrary to the orders passed in WP.No.27356 of 2003 and WA.No.1929 of 2004, can be passed in this writ petition. When once the order of respondent No.2 has been confirmed in the said writ petition and writ appeal, its legality and validity cannot be re-agitated on the purported ground that the respondents have not brought correct facts to the notice of this Court. The petitioners have not sought for any review of the orders passed in the said writ petition and writ appeal. For the abovementioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.13377 and 20300 of 2005 filed by the petitioners are disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 04.07.2008 ES