THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CONTEMPT CASE No. 1124 OF 2011 Dated: 30.11.2011 Between : Smt. A.Venkata Subbamma … Petitioner And Mohd.Rafi … Respondent The Court made the following:- THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CONTEMPT CASE No. 1124 OF 2011 O R D E R: This contempt case is filed alleging violation of the order dated 06.10.2010 in Writ Petition No.14048 of 2010, which was disposed of with directions as under: “Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the specific case of the petitioner that no notification under Section 22-A of the Act, has been published prohibiting the registration of any document in respect of the land in question, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the 3rd respondent to receive the document that may be presented by the petitioner and process the same in accordance with law. In case there is any objection for registration, such objection shall be communicated to the petitioner within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of presentation of the document. No costs.” It is alleged in the contempt case that pursuant to the above order though the petitioner presented the document along with requisite stamp duty and registration fees, the respondent had neither released the document nor communicated the objections, if any. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent, the fact that the petitioner had represented the document for registration has not been disputed. However, it is stated that the schedule property was found to be a Government land and therefore, the respondent passed an order dated 27.08.2011 refusing to register the document. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent has produced a copy of the said order and it was also served on the learned counsel for the petitioner on 22.11.2011. In the light of the said order dated 27.08.2011, no further enquiry is necessary in the contempt case and accordingly, the same is closed granting leave and liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order dated 27.08.2011 by working out the appropriate remedy available under law. No costs. ___________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 30.11.2011 Ivd