IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) , THE DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Contempt Case No : 1150 of 2009 Between: Mohammed Jani Miya ..... PETITIONER AND Mr.Rajeshwar Tiwari and others. .....RESPONDENTS ORDER: This contempt case is filed alleging wilful disobedience of the orders of this Court, dated 13.10.2008, passed in W.P.No.19364 of 2008. The petitioner filed W.P.No.19364 of 2008 seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent Nos.1 to 3 i.e., revenue authorities, in assigning the land to an extent of Ac.1.10 guntas situated in Survey No.59 of Kondapur Village, Sherilangampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, belonging to him, to the unofficial respondents, in spite of the prohibitory orders in E.P.No.3 of 2006 in O.S.No.77 of 2005 on the file of the learned II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, as illegal and arbitrary. This Court, while ordering notice before admission on 06.09.2008, directed the parties to maintain status quo and thereafter, as the respondents could not file counter, in spite of granting sufficient time, through order, dated 13.10.2008, issued Rule nisi and extended the status quo orders granted earlier, until further orders. Alleging that in violation of the said orders of status quo, respondent Nos.1 to 3 have transferred the subject land in favour of the unofficial respondents, who started making constructions therein, the petitioner filed the present contempt case. The petitioner states that he filed O.S.No.77 of 2005 on the file of the learned II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar against the fourth respondent and some others for specific performance of an agreement of sale, dated 12.09.1995, in respect of the subject land, which was decreed on 27.10.2005. That later on, he also filed E.P.No.3 of 2006 for execution of the said decree, wherein the executing Court through its order, dated 30.06.2006, prohibited the judgment debtors from transferring or changing the nature of the plaint schedule property, until further orders. In response to the notice issued in the contempt case, the second respondent, namely, the Tahsildar, Serilingampally, Ranga Reddy District, filed counter affidavit in the matter. Similarly, the unofficial respondents i.e., respondent Nos.5 to 9, also filed a detailed counter. It is stated in the counter filed by the second respondent that the land to an extent of Acs.57.09 guntas situated in Survey No.59 of Kondapur is classified as ‘Gairan Sarkari’. That when an application was filed by the fourth respondent for issuance of pattadar pass books in respect of the land to an extent of Acs.2.00 in the said survey number, the same was rejected by the then Joint Collector by order, dated 30.01.2001. That subsequently a notice, dated 28.02.2001, under Section 7 of the A.P.Land Encroachment Act, 1905 was issued to the fourth respondent, for which, he also submitted his explanation and even final order, dated 12.05.2005, was passed under Section 6 of the A.P.Land Encroachment Act, 1905. It is stated that later on the land was allotted to the persons, who lost their lands under road widening at Kothaguda Junction as alternative land, in lieu of compensation and even Land Transfer Certificates were also issued to the allottees, and were also put in possession. It is therefore stated that much prior to the status quo orders and the decree in O.S.No.77 of 2005, the Government has resumed possession of the subject land way back on 12.07.2005 under a cover of panchanama and re-allotted the same to respondent Nos.5 to 9 and 55 others whose lands were acquired in the process of road widening at Kothaguda Junction and that respondent Nos.1 to 3 have not violated the orders passed by this Court. Respondent Nos.5 to 9 also filed a detailed counter denying the allegations made by the petitioner and taking similar stand as that of the Government. It is stated that the fourth respondent filed O.S.No.331 of 2006 on the file of the learned II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar against respondent Nos.1 to 3 for declaration of his title, wherein respondent Nos.5 to 9 and 55 others got themselves impleaded and the matter is still pending. It is categorically stated that on 14.10.2005, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, Ranga Reddy District issued, a notice under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for acquisition of the lands of respondent Nos.5 to 9 along with 55 others, as the said lands are needed for the purpose of road widening of Kothaguda Junction at KM 11/2004 on Intermediate Ring Road and has taken possession of the same. In lieu of acquisition of their lands, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella, issued proceedings, dated 17.12.2005, allotting the subject land and has even issued Land Transfer Certificates. Thereupon, they started making constructions in their respective lands and therefore, it is stated that they have not violated the orders of this Court. The petitioner filed reply affidavits to the counters filed by the respondents reiterating the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the contempt case. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing respondent Nos.1 to 3 and the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.5 to 9. In spite of service of notice, none appears for the fourth respondent. At the outset, it is to be noted that this Court, while entertaining W.P.No.19364 of 2009, on 06.09.2008, directed the parties to maintain status quo and later on, extended the status quo order until further orders vide orders, dated 13.10.2008, which reads as under: “Though status quo is ordered by this Court on 06.09.2008 and sufficient time is granted, no counter affidavit is filed. Hence issue Rule nisi. Call for records. Notice returnable in four weeks. The status quo order earlier granted shall stand extended until further orders. Post the writ petition after filing counter.” It is clear from the above order that left with no other option, this Court extended the status quo order granted on 06.09.2008, as the respondents did not file counter in the matter, in spite of granting sufficient time. Alleging violation of the said order, the petitioner filed the present contempt case. The main contention advanced by the petitioner in this contempt case is that in spite of prohibitory orders of the executing Court and the status quo orders of this Court, respondent Nos.1 to 3, in utter violation of the same, have transferred the subject land in favour of respondent Nos.5 to 9, who started making constructions therein. After taking notice in the contempt case, the official respondents as well as the unofficial respondents filed detailed counters in the matter bringing on record substantial information and stating that much prior to the status quo orders passed by this Court on 13.10.2008, the subject land was resumed by the Government on 12.07.2005 by way of panchanama and re-allotted the same to respondent Nos.5 to 9 and 55 others, in lieu of acquisition of their lands for widening of road at Kothaguda Junction. Be it noted, except respondent Nos.5 to 9, the other beneficiaries are not parties to the writ proceedings and the Government is not a party to the civil suit filed by the petitioner. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the respondents have violated the orders of this Court, much less wilfully. However, as this Court passed the status quo orders in the writ petition in the absence of the counters being filed by the respondents and in view of the fact that the writ petition is still pending, this Court is of the considered opinion that without expressing any opinion on merits, it would be appropriate to close the contempt case with a direction to the parties to urge all the contentions in the main writ petition itself and they are at liberty to make a mention before the learned Judge for early hearing of the matter. With this, the contempt case is closed. ____________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date: 31.12.2009 VGB