THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM CONTEMPT CASE No. 817 of 2007. DATED: 21-10-2010 Oral order: The contempt case is filed alleging violation of the directions of this Court dated 22-8-2005 in the writ petition. The writ petition was disposed of at the stage of admission. The writ petition was filed apprehending steps by the respondent to dispossess the petitioner from the land in Sy.Nos. 175/4 and 182/5 of an extent of Ac.1-23 cents and Ac.3-05 cents of Yatapaka village, Bhadrachalam Mandal, without notice and without following due process. The writ petition was disposed of following the judgment of this Court in Pilli Lakshmana Rao and others v. Executive Officer, Gram Panchayath, Challapalle and others[1], whereby it was directed that before taking any action to dispossess a person, the authorities concerned shall give a notice and follow the due process. In the contempt case, the petitioner asserts that though the respondent has not taken any steps to dispossess her from the land, on the basis of the oral statement of the respondent, some unauthorized persons are interfering with her possession. It is further stated that on 7-9-2007 the respondent came along with staff and other men to her land and threatened her to remove the poles as well as the fencing. The respondent Sri P.Subba Rao, the Mandal Revenue Officer- cum-Tahsildar, Bhadrachalam filed a counter-affidavit on 12-11-2007. In this counter it is stated that the Settlement Officer, Bhadrachalam had initiated suo motu proceedings against the husband of the petitioner in Case No. 5270 under Section 9 of Regulation 2/70 for grant of Ryotwari Patta in respect of the schedule lands. After enquiry, the Settlement Officer having found that neither the name of the petitioner nor her ancestors was registered in the Amarkam Register of the Village for the year 1354 Fasli, held that the possession of Laxmana Das, the petitioner’s husband was unlawful. Thereafter the petitioner’s husband Laxmana Das preferred an appeal before the Director of Settlements on 15-3-1983. The Director of Settlement rejected the appeal for Ryotwari Patta in respect of 0-40 Hectares in Sy.No. 174/4 and 1.22 Hectares in Sy.No. 182/5 of Yatapaka village of Bhadrachalam Mandal, Khammam District. Thereafter notice under Section 7 of the Land Encroachment Act was given on 6-2-2005 and orders were passed on 4-3-2005 under Section 6 of the said Act and the petitioner evicted under a cover of panchanama dated 4-3-2005. The writ petition is filed without stating all these facts, is the averments in the counter. It is further stated by Sri Subba Rao that after resumption of the land from the petitioner, the same was allotted to the Housing Board on 28-6-2005 for construction of houses under Rajiv Swagruha Housing Scheme. An additional counter-affidavit is filed by the successor Tahsildar, Bhadrachalam Sri A.Seetharama Rao on 16-2-2009. In this counter it is stated that the land in question is recorded as Anadeenapunja (Government Land) and there is no record of enjoyment by the petitioner or her ancestors. The rejection of the appeal of the petitioner’s husband for grant of a Ryotwari Patta by the Settlement Officer and its confirmation by the Director of Settlements is reiterated in this counter. It is further stated that when his predecessor V.Nageswar Rao was the Tahsildar of Bhadrachalam, the land which was resumed by the Government was handed over to the Housing Board for execution of a housing scheme. In a reply-affidavit, the contempt petitioner states that the assertion in the counter that orders were passed for eviction under Section 6 of the Land Encroachment Act on 4-3-2005 and that the land was resumed from the possession of the petitioner on 4-3-2005 is a false statement; the lands are in the name of her husband who died in 2002 and she is paying tax regularly without any default. It is also stated that the name of her husband is recorded in the revenue records. The petitioner reiterates that she continues in possession and enjoyment of land of an extent of Ac.1-22 cents and Ac.3-05 cents in Sy.Nos. 175/4 and 182/5 respectively of Yatapaka village and that the respondents are interfering with her possession. From the several averments it is apparent that the petitioner’s entitlement to the land in question is in dispute. There is also a serious dispute as to whether the petitioner is in possession of the property. Such disputed questions of fact are more appropriately amenable to resolution before a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. As the contempt proceeding are quasi criminal proceedings, proof beyond reasonable doubt as to wanton and willful disobedience of the orders of the Court by the respondent must be recorded before punishing the respondent. In view of the serious disputed positions and facts, no conclusion with the requisite degree of certainty, as to wanton and willful disobedience of the orders of this Court by the respondent, is made out. Hence the contempt case is dismissed. It is however open to the contempt petitioner to seek appropriate relief either for declaration of title or injunctive relief before the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. _________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 21st October, 2010. GRR [1] 2000(5) ALT 246 (DB)