THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM C.C. No. 754 of 2009 Dated. 21–10-2010 Between: M. Laxmikanthiah …Petitioner Vs. V. Gopal Reddy …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM C.C.No. 754 of 2009 ORAL ORDER: When called there is no representation on behalf of the contempt petitioner. The contempt is filed alleging violation of the orders of this Court dated 02-06-2009 in the writ petition. By the said order, this Court directed the parties not to alter the features of the land in question or alienate the same in any manner and to maintain status quo as regards possession of the land, pending disposal of revision before the 1st respondent under Section 4-B of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977. In the contempt case, the petitioner contends that despite the orders of this Court dated 02-06-2009 and despite the petitioner being in possession of the schedule land, the respondent is disturbing his possession and has undertaken leveling of the land and has thus violated the orders of this Court. The respondent who is the President of the 2nd respondent society (in writ petition) has filed counter affidavit clearly denying the allegations of interference and of altering the physical features of the land. In particular, it is pleaded that the petitioner has made vague and baseless allegations without furnishing particulars of the alleged levelling of the land and that the answering respondent is not aware of any complaint made by the petitioner to the Station House Officer, Chandanagar Police Station, Cyberabad and clearly stating that the 2nd respondent in the writ petition nor the answering respondent have violated the orders of this Court dated 02-06-2009. The petitioner has filed reply affidavit reiterating the allegations in the contempt case and alleging that the 2nd respondent in the writ petition has in fact interfered with the petitioner’s possession of the land in question and also made alterations to the physical features of the land and has thus violated the orders of this Court. The learned counsel for the respondent states that no activity has been pursued by the answering respondent in the land in question after the orders of this Court and that all development of the land, if any, was prior to the orders of this Court. As the substantive revision is pending with the State Government against the orders of the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District dated 24-11-2008 allowing the revision petition filed by the contempt petitioner, this Court does not consider it appropriate to decide the issue whether the petitioner is entitled to the property in question or is in possession thereof. The aspect whether the respondent herein or the 2nd respondent in the writ petition has violated the orders of this Court dated 02-06-2009 is also not established by the mere pleadings on record or the photographs filed by the petitioner allegedly showing the position and status of the land subsequent to the orders of this Court. In the circumstances this Court is unable to record a finding that the respondent has violated the orders of status quo in respect of the land in question, beyond a reasonable doubt. The contempt case is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged. __________________________ JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM Dated: 21-10-2010 Pvks/*