THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH CONTEMPT CASE No.562 of 2010 ORDER: This contempt case is filed alleging that the respondents intentionally and willfully disobeyed the order, dated 07-01-2009, passed by this court in W.P.M.P.No.42 of 2009 in W.P.No.46 of 2009. This court by order, dated 01-04-2010, dismissed the contempt case against respondents 2 to 4 and the contempt case is proceeded only against the 1st respondent. Seven petitioners filed W.P.No.46 of 2009 and in W.P.M.P.No.42 of 2009 they sought suspension of the order of the Government Memo, dated 12-11-2008 and this court by order, dated 07-01-2009, directed to maintain status quo as to the nature and possession of the land. This contempt case is filed alleging that all the writ petitioners purchased the lease hold rights of the land for an extent of Ac.476-00 in Sy.No.1/1 of Damavaram Village, Dagadarthi Mandak, SPSR Nellore District, from its lawful perpetual lease holders vide agreement of sale, dated 15-12-1999, and ever since, they have been in possession and enjoyment of the same. While so, on 09-10-2009, respondents 2 to 4 against whom the contempt case was already dismissed, trespassed into their land and illegally ploughed the land as per the directions of the 1st respondent-Tahsildar. Therefore, the petitioner gave a report to the 1st respondent stating that though he is well aware of the order passed by this court, he is instigating respondents 2 to 4 to trespass into the land in question. Thus, it is stated that the 1st respondent has wilfully and deliberately violated the order of this Court. A counter has been filed by the 1st respondent stating that the land claimed by the petitioner is situated in Damavaram village, Dagadarthi Mandal, which is an inam estate village, and the same was taken over by the Government on 01-10-1951 under the provisions of Estate Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act, 1948. The land claimed by the petitioner is in Sy.No.1/1. The total extent of the land in Sy.No.1/1 is 2,607.95 acres, which was classified as Adavai Poramboke and earmarked for grazing purpose. No settlement pattas were issued in respect of the said land under the provisions of Estate Abolition Act. No person has claimed any ryotwari patta either under Section 15(1) or 11-A of the Estate Abolition Act and, therefore, the entire land was notified as government land. However, the Board of Revenue has considered the request of the ryots for grant of lease of the land to an extent of 700 acres and accordingly on 29-12-1960, issued orders under Section 20-A of the Estate Abolition Act. The petitioner claims that he has purchased leasehold rights of the land reserved for grazing purpose. It is further stated that the total extent of the land in Sy.No.1/1 is of 2,607.95 acres and it was allotted as under:- Sl.No. Particulars Extent of land 1. Perpetual lease held by some ryots of Damavaram village for grazing of cattle confirmed by Board of Revenue in BPRT No.5829/60, dated 29-12-1960. 700.00 2. Extent allotted to Forest Department as per G.O.Ms.No.100 Forest and Rural Development Department for 111 dated 24-04-1974. 1143.00 3. Land granted to Fishermen as per G.O.Ms.No.22, Rev.Assn.11 Department, dated 07-01-1997 (vide Collector’s D.Dis.665/97, dated 28-02-1997) 150.00 4. Extent handed over to Forest Department in lieu of Forest Department land taken for Telugu Ganga Project. 200.00 5. Extent assigned to SCs, STs and BCs. 259.77 6. Balance extent available for assignment Total: 155.18 ---------------- Ac.2607.95 It is further stated that when 4th respondent encroached into the government land reserved for grazing purpose and ploughed the land, a criminal case was registered against him and the same is still pending. Insofar as the allegation that the 1st respondent is instigating respondents 2 to 4 is concerned, it is stated that the said averment is made only for the purpose of the present contempt case, inasmuch as absolutely there was no instigation or permission or direction by the Tahsildar-1st respondent. It is stated that respondents 2 and 3 have ploughed the land in Sy.No.1/1, but the said cultivation or ploughing of land is not within the land claimed by the petitioner and it is at a different place. The total extent of the land in Sy.No.1/1 is 2,607.95 acres and there is no sub-division to the land of the petitioner and, therefore, whenever any person enters into the land of 2,607.95 acres, the petitioner is alleging that the order of this Court has been violated. It is stated that the respondents have not violated the order of this Court. In the instant case, the land of the petitioner is not earmarked by any specific boundaries and the writ petition is filed by seven writ petitioners, whereas the present contempt case is filed by the 1st petitioner alone without furnishing particulars of the lease hold rights and the agreement. Further, in view of the aforesaid disputed questions of facts with regard to boundaries, identity and location of the land, it may not be possible for this court to hold that the 1st respondent has intentionally and wilfully violated the order of this Court. Accordingly, the contempt case is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________ 22-10-2010 Prv