HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA C.C. No. 39 of 2009 DATED: 19.10.2009 Between: Nutalapati Mallikarjuna Rao .. Petitioner And 1. The District Collector 2. P.Gloria, Tahsildar 3. Grandhi Venkata Subbai 4. Munuga Harinath 5. Sanikommu Anuradha .. Respondents O R D E R:- This Contempt Case is filed alleging willful disobedience on the part of the 2nd respondent-Tahsildar in complying with the order dated 17.09.2008 passed by this Court in W.P.No.14544 of 2008. On 17.09.2008, when the writ petition was taken up, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue made his submissions based on instructions received by him, which are to the following effect: “On instructions, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue, submitted that the lands admeasuring Ac.0.50 cents and Ac.0.40 cents in Sy.Nos.32/1 and 39/10 respectively of Bodduvaripalem village, S.N. Padu Mandal, Prakasam District, were assigned to the petitioner vide DK.No.98/1393, dated 25.03.1984 and later, some portion of the land was encroached, and on the representation of the petitioner, a detailed report was submitted to the first respondent-District Collector, Prakasam District on 20.08.2007 stating that action would be taken for eviction of the encroachers. He further states that Notice in Form No.7 under Land Encroachment Act, 1905, was issued to the encroachers, 8 in number, and as they have refused to receive notices, substitute service was effected on 04.09.2008 and the respondents are taking steps to evict the encroachers within one month.” Upon recording the stand taken by the learned Government Pleader for Revenue, as indicted above, this Court while closing the writ petition, observed as follows: “In view of the submissions made by the learned Government Pleader for Revenue that notices were issued to the encroachers and are taking necessary action to evict them, I see no reason to keep the writ petition pending before this Court. Accordingly, the writ petition is closed. No order as to costs”. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, even though the writ petition was closed with the observations, as extracted above, no action had been taken by the 2nd respondent-Tahsildar, for evicting the encroachers from the land belonging to the petitioner, and therefore, the petitioner is constrained to file the present Contempt Case alleging non-compliance of the order passed by this Court. The 2nd respondent-Tahsildar filed counter affidavit contending stating that the petitioner vide D-Form Patta No. 98/93 was assigned an extent of Ac.0.50 cents in Sy. No. 32/1 and Ac. 0.40 cents in Sy. No. 39/10. That there exits an extent of Ac. 0.94 cents in Sy. No. 32/1, and out of the said extent, as stated above, an extent of Acs. 0.50 cents was assigned to the petitioner. The respondents-authorities are ready to hand over the vacant land in an extent of Acs. 0.50 cents, and the petitioner can take possession and cultivate the same. As there are encroachments in the remaining extent of Acs. 0.44 cents, they are taking steps to remove them. It is further stated that on 25.01.2009, a notice was issued to the petitioner requesting him to attend the field in Sy. No. 32/1 for measuring Acs. 0.50 cents and for fixing the boundaries, but the petitioner refused to receive the notice. Therefore, the Village Revenue Officer has returned the notice to the Office of the Tahsildar, Santhanuthalapadu Mandal, who thereafter, issued memo dated 02.02.2009 directing the Mandal Revenue Inspector, to hand over the physical possession of the land in Sy. No. 32/1 admeasruing Acs. 0.50 cents to the petitioner, but the petitioner is not willing to take the said extent of land. The petitioner cannot choose the land, which is in occupation of somebody else, and as per the D-Form patta Acs. 0.50 cents of land in Sy. No. 32/1 will be handed over to him. Refuting the above averments made in the counter affidavit, the petitioner filed a detailed reply affidavit inter alia stating that the 2nd respondent, without evicting the encroachers from the land assigned to him, has offered him some other land in the same survey number, which is not assigned to him. He further submitted that most part of the remaining land in an extent of Ac.0.44 cents is covered by R & B Road leading from Santhanuthalapadu to Maddulur, and as such, he contended that the statement made by the 2nd respondent that they are taking steps to remove the encroachers from the said land is incorrect. The 2nd respondent is wantonly and deliberately postponing the handing over the possession of the land in an extent of Ac.0.50 cents, which is assigned to him. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. As could be seen from the stand taken by the respondents in their counter affidavit, there are said to be some encroachments in some part of the land in an extent of Acs. 0.44 cents in the Sy. No. 32/1, in which survey number, the petitioner was also assigned land in an extent of Acs. 0.50 cents. It is the case of the respondents that as it would take some time to remove the encroachments, they are ready to allot the vacant land in an extent of Acs. 0.50 cents of land as per the D-Form patta. However, the petitioner, in his reply affidavit, insisted that he must be given only the portion of the land that was assigned to him under the D-Form patta, and therefore, sought appropriate directions to the respondents to give him possession of the land that was actually allotted to him. Since some portion of the land in the survey number in which the petitioner was assigned land in an extent of Acs. 0.50 cents is said to be under encroachment and as it is stated by the respondents that it would take some time to get the encroachments removed, and as the respondents are ready and willing to hand over the vacant extent of land i.e. Acs. 0.50 cents of land in the very same survey number as per the D-Form patta, it cannot be said that the respondents have violated the orders of this Court, and more so, when the petitioner himself has refused to take the vacant land, which the respondents have agreed to give. However, having regard to the submission made by the respondents that there are certain encroachments on the land which was assigned to the petitioner, and since the petitioner is insisting delivery of possession of the land assigned to him as mentioned in the D-Form Patta, the only direction that can be given is to direct the respondents to remove the encroachments from the land that was assigned to the petitioner, and hand over the vacant possession thereof to him. With the directions as above, the Contempt Case is disposed of. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 19.10.2009 bcj