THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI C.C. No.753 of 2011 ORDER : Heard Sri K.Chidambaram, learned counsel for petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Endowments appearing on behalf of Respondents 1 and 3, Sri Ch.Satish Kumar, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.2 and Sri V.Srinivas, learned counsel for the Respondent No.4 2. This Contempt has been filed complaining violation of interim orders dated 09-06-2011 in WPMP No.18593 of 2011 in W.P. No.15510 of 2011. By the said order this Court granted stay of all further proceedings including the confirmation of leasehold rights in respect of the subject land. 3. The petitioners filed the writ petition opposing auction of subject lands situate in Sy.Nos.306, 307, 309, 310 and 311 of Dacharam Village, Mothukur Mandal, Nalgonda District claiming that they are cultivating tenants. Their status as tenants in respect of an extent of Ac.0.30 guntas and Acs.2.10 guntas respectively does not appear to be in dispute. Earlier when the said land was proposed to be auctioned, the petitioners filed W.P.No.11092 of 2003 wherein this Court directed that they shall not be dispossessed pending determination of their status as tenants and the concerned authority should fix the lease amount and in case petitioners were not agreeable to pay the said amount, it would be open to the temple authorities to resume the land and put to auction. It appears that no further action was taken in pursuance of the said order. 4. Be that as it may, the 4th respondent again issued auction notification dated 25-05-2011. Since petitioners have been in possession of the land, they field the Writ Petition challenging the said auction. This Court granted an interim order as stated above. The petitioners state that the 1st respondent violated the said orders by interfering with their possession by attempting to induct the highest bidder into the land. On such allegation the contempt case was admitted. Subsequently, since the second highest bidder was said to have been inducted, he was impleaded as respondent No.4 in the contempt case. 5. Both the respondents filed counters. 6. The 1st respondent in the counter-affidavit states that in order to create financial resources for the maintenance of the temple, auction was proposed to be held and accordingly wide publicity was given and one of the petitioners E.Kistaiah (petitioner No.1) also participated in the auction without raising any objection. The auction was knocked down in favour of one, E.Katamaiah and as he failed to deposit the lease amount, the leasehold rights were granted in favour of the 4th respondent, who was the second highest bidder. He further states that the 4th respondent took possession of the land without being inducted and confirmation of leasehold rights from him. He further states that even though the leasehold rights were granted in favour of the 4th respondent, in view of the interim orders of this Court, the same has been recalled by proceedings dated 30-06-2011 in Rc.No.B/529/2011/1. He therefore states that since the auction has been recalled and no confirmation was granted, he has not violated the orders of this Court. During the course of hearing, a representation was made on behalf of the 1st respondent that the 4th respondent forcibly entered into the possession of the land even before the confirmation of lease and that he would take necessary steps for resuming the land from the possession of the 4th respondent. He therefore filed a further affidavit stating that he has taken possession under a panchanama dated 02-11-2011 with the help of the Tahsildar, Motkur and other officials and handed over the possession to petitioners who have accepted the possession by appending their signatures to the panchanama in acknowledgement of handing over possession. 7. The 4th respondent filed a counter inter alia denying that he has taken possession forcibly and that he was legitimately given possession of the land by official respondents on depositing 75% of the bid amount. He therefore submits that he has not violated the orders of this Court. 8. From the above discussion, two facts would emerge; (i) even though auction was held, the same has not been confirmed; and (ii) the subject land had gone into the possession of the 4th respondent. It is true that there is lot of controversy whether the 1st respondent himself inducted the 4th respondent into possession as contended by the 4th respondent or whether the 4th respondent entered into possession by himself without being inducted. One aspect which is clear, is that since the auction was not confirmed in favour of the 4th respondent, the 1st respondent could not have allowed the 4th respondent to remain in possession. As per the relevant rules, the auction of leasehold rights is not final unless the same is approved by the competent authority and an agreement has been entered into between the parties. 9. Be that as it may, the question that arises for consideration is whether the respondents have deliberately violated interim order of this Court. 10. As noted above, there is no confirmation of auction. The only lapse appears to be that the 4th respondent was given possession of the subject land which has the effect of disturbing the rights of petitioners. But it may be stated that subsequently the said land has been resumed. Even though the petitioners in the affidavit filed in support of the contempt case contend that their possession was being interfered with, there is no specific averment as to on which date the 4th respondent was inducted into possession. As may be noticed, the auction was held on 01-06-2011 and this Court granted interim orders on 09-06-2011. In the absence of specific allegation that the petitioner had been inducted into possession subsequent to the orders of this Court, no conclusive finding can be recorded finding that the respondents have violated the orders of this Court. It is well settled that the contempt proceedings being quasi judicial in nature, specific allegations are required to be made. In the aforesaid circumstances, I am of the view that the respondents have not violated the orders of this Court. Since on account of the indiscrete action of the 1st respondent in permitting the 4th respondent to remain in possession even before the confirmation of auction, which is certainly a lapse, the 4th respondent has expressed apology. The said apology is placed on record. 11. Contempt Case is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 11th November, 2011 skmr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI C.C. No.753 of 2011 Date : 11-11-2011 Between : E.Kistaiah & another .. Petitioners and Sri V.Madanachary & 2 Others .. Respondents