HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN CONTEMPT CASE No.315 of 2010 ORDER: This Contempt Case is filed on the ground of violation of the order of this Court dated 06.01.2010, in WPMP.No.36213 of 2009 in W.P.No.15657 of 2008, whereby the second respondent-Tahsildar, U.Kothapalli Mandal, East Godavari District, was directed to ascertain whether the standing crop grown in Sy.Nos. 31,41,42, 43/1 to 7, 45/1 to 5, 46, 47, 78/1 to 3, 80/1 and 2, 81, 82, 83, 84, 86 and 88 had been raised by the petitioners and, if so, to permit them to cut the standing crop. Sri N.V.Anantha Krishna, Learned Counsel for the petitioners, would contend that since the respondents had admitted, in the counter affidavit filed in WVMP.No.3205 of 2009, that the petitioners were in possession, and were cultivating lands in all the aforementioned survey numbers, the report of the second respondent-Tahsildar that they had raised the standing crop only in three of the survey numbers, and not in the rest, was false; and their endeavour was only to mislead this Court. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue would draw attention of this Court to the counter affidavit filed in the Contempt Case, wherein the second respondent-Tahsildar had specifically stated that he had caused verification and, wherever the standing crop had been raised by the petitioners, they were permitted to cut the standing crop, and not in other areas. Contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature and the degree of proof required to establish contempt is proof beyond reasonable doubt. It is only on a clear case of wilful and deliberate violation, of the order of this Court, having been made out, would this Court be justified in initiating proceedings for contempt of Court. The question, whether the petitioners had raised the standing crop in all the survey numbers or whether they had raised it only in three survey numbers, is a matter which this Court had directed the second respondent-Tahsildar to ascertain. The second respondent- Tahsildar had filed his counter affidavit stating that he had found that the petitioners had grown standing crop only in three of the survey numbers and not in the rest, he had permitted them to cut the standing crop only therein and not in the other survey numbers. The action of the second respondent-Tahsildar cannot be said to be in violation of the order of this Court, much less in wilful and deliberate violation thereof. The remedy, if any, for the petitioners is to question the order of the second respondent-Tahsildar in independent proceedings, and not by way of a contempt case. The Contempt Case fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Dt:06-08-2010 usd