THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CONTEMPT CASE No.1003 of 2008 Dated:01.12.2011 Between: Smt.B.Chitaramma, And others. …Petitioners and The Joint Collector-II, Ranga Reddy District, Lakdi Ka Pool, Hyderabad, And others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CONTEMPT CASE No.1003 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioners herein filed a civil revision petition under Section 28 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955. They filed C.R.P.M.P.No.2360 of 2006 to suspend the orders of the Joint Collector-II, Ranga Reddy District, dated 07.02.2006, in File No.F/6286/2003. On 17.04.2006 this Court suspended the order of the Joint Collector. Alleging that in spite of the direction of this Court not to create third party rights by alienating the property, the fourth respondent executed two sale deeds in favour of A.Hanumanth Yadav and A.Sudhakar Yadav for 100 square yards and in favour of M.Vinod Kumar Goud for 118 square yards, the petitioners filed the instant contempt case. The fourth respondent filed counter affidavit. He would submit that he has not received any notice in the Civil Revision Petition and that he has no knowledge of the orders passed by this Court until the Police came to his house to arrest him pursuant to the orders of this Court in the Contempt Case. He expressed unconditional apology and sought for purging the contempt. During the course of the arguments today, it is brought to my notice that C.R.P.No.1715 of 2006 was itself allowed by this Court on 08.07.2010. A copy of the order is also placed before this Court. By the said order, this Court remanded the matter to the appellate authority, namely, the Joint Collector, for fresh consideration giving liberty to the parties to adduce fresh evidence. In that view of the matter if any opinion is expressed with regard to the sale deeds allegedly executed by the fourth respondent, it would not be proper. Liberty is given to the petitioners to raise the plea before the Joint Collector and it shall be competent to him to pass appropriate orders with regard to the sale deeds executed lis pendens. The Contempt Case with the above observations is disposed of accordingly. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 01.12.2011 vs