THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Contempt Case No.1081 of 2009 Date:08th April, 2010 Between: Ruksana Khanam …Petitioner and 1.Sri Shameel Anand Kumar, the Addl. Agent to the Govt. under APSALTR cum-the Project Officer, I.T.D.A., Utnoor, Adilabad District and others. …Respondents. *** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Contempt Case No.1081 of 2009 JUDGMENT: This Contempt Case has been filed by the petitioner in W.P.No.21365 of 2008 against the respondents complaining disobedience of the order dated 29.09.2008 passed in WPMP No.27913 of 2008 in W.P.No.21365 of 2008. 2. Notice before admission came to be ordered on 12.06.2009. Subsequently, the petitioner filed Contempt Application No.382 of 2009 seeking leave for filing the contempt case against R5 to R9, who are the relatives of the 4th respondent. The said application came to be ordered on 31.07.2009. Respondents 4 to 6 and 8 entered appearance through a counsel. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reports that the petitioner is not pressing the contempt case against the respondents 7 and 9. Therefore, the Contempt Case against the respondents 7 and 9 is dismissed as not pressed. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and learned counsel appearing for the respondents 4 to 6 & 8. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was in possession of the property in dispute as on the date of filing of the writ petition and therefore, initiation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner by the respondents on the premise of her being not in possession of the property on the date of filing of the writ petition, amounts to violation of the orders passed by this Court in WPMP No.27913 of 2008. Learned counsel further submits that within 6 days of the dismissal of the appeal filed by the petitioner before the appellate authority, the respondents resorted to fabricate the record as if the delivery has been effected to the 4th respondent. In a way, it is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the alleged panchanama dated 29.08.2008 is concocted by the revenue authorities to defeat the claim of the petitioner. It is asserted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner is in occupation of the property as on this day and therefore, initiation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner as if she disturbed the possession of the 4th respondent amounts to violation of the orders passed by this Court in WPMP No.27913 of 2008. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents 4 to 6 and 8 submits that the 4th respondent was put in possession of the property in dispute by the revenue authorities under panchanama dated 29.08.2008 and therefore, as on the date of filing of the writ petition, the petitioner was not in possession of the property. The learned counsel refers the panchanama dated 29.08.2008. 6. The petitioner herein filed the writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents 2 to 4 (the Special Deputy Collector (Tribal Welfare) and Prescribed Officer under A.P. Scheduled Area Land Transfer Regulation, 1959, Utnoor, Adilabad District; the Additional Agent to the Govt. under APSALTR-cum-the Project Officer, I.T.D.A., Utnoor, Adilabad District and the Mandal Revenue Officer, Gudihatnoor, Adilabad District) not to physically evict the petitioner from the agricultural land admeasuring Ac.13.21 guntas situated in Sy.No.117 (old) corresponding to 247 (new) of Tosham Village, Mandal Gudihatnoor, Adilabad District. She also moved WPMP No.27913 of 2008 seeking direction to the respondents 2 to 4 not to physically evict her pending disposal of the writ petition. This Court passed the following Order: “There shall be status quo existing as on this day with regard to the nature and possession of the land in dispute and notice.” 7. It is the contention of the petitioner that she was in possession of the property in dispute as on the date of filing of the writ petition. Whereas, it is the contention of the respondents 1 to 3, 4 to 6 and 8 that as on the date of filing of the writ petition, the petitioner was not in possession of the property in dispute, since the revenue authorities put the 4th respondent in possession of the property under a panchanama dated 29.08.2008. The copy of the panchanama has been placed on record. It is explicit from the panchanama that the 4th respondent was put in possession of the property in dispute in the presence of 1) Marsukola Devarao; 2) Kochheda Narayana; 3) Mengam Narsaiah and 4) Ulvakani Ashok. Of course, it is the contention of the petitioner that the revenue authorities fabricated the panchanama dated 29.08.2008, within 6 days of the order passed by the appellate authority without giving any breathing time to the petitioner to challenge the order passed by the appellate Authority by filing a revision before the Government. If the delivery of the property is not in accordance with the rules, the petitioner is at liberty to agitate the same in the writ petition. As on this day, the panchanama is explicit that the 4th respondent was put in possession of the property in dispute on 29.08.2008. The petitioner filed the writ petition on 25.09.2008 and obtained interim order on 29.09.2008 vide WPMP No.27913 of 2008. In view of the panchanama dated 29.08.2008, it cannot be said that the petitioner was in possession of the property in dispute as on the date of filing of the writ petition. Therefore, I find that the petitioner failed to substantiate her case that the respondents violated the interim order dated 29.09.2008 passed in WPMP No.27913 of 2008 in W.P.No.21365 of 2008. 8. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is dismissed. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:08th April, 2010. CS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Contempt Case No.1081 of 2009 Date:08th April, 2010