THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Contempt Case No.1288 of 2009 ORDER: This contempt case has been filed complaining disobedience of the order dated 31.12.2008 passed in Writ Petition No.25279 of 2006. 2. Notice before admission came to be ordered on 23.9.2009. The contempt case came to be admitted against 2nd respondent on 29.12.2009. 3. P.Gavaraiah, Mandal Revenue Officer, Buttaigudam Mandal-2nd respondent appeared before the Court on 10.02.2010 and reported that proceedings have been issued on 01.02.2010, whereunder it is stated that the petitioner has already been in occupation of Ac.3.00 cents in R.S.121 of Lakshmudugudem. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner denied of the petitioner being in occupation of Ac.3.00 in Sy.No.121 of Lakshmudugudem. Thereupon, this Court directed the 2nd respondent to file counter affidavit detailing the extent of land in occupation of the petitioner. The respondent No.2 filed counter affidavit detailing the extent of land in occupation of the petitioner. Relevant portion of the counter affidavit reads as hereunder:- “ I further submit that the Collector, West Godavari, Eluru has directed to the Special Deputy Collector (TW), K.R.Puram to take necessary action in order to implement the orders of the Hon’ble High Court of A.P., passed in W.P.No.25279/2006, Dt.31.12.2008 duly obtaining the legal opinion from the Government Pleader vide Roc.No.2663/09 (F2), Dt.04.06.2009. The matter stood thus the Special Deputy Collector (TW), K.R.Puram directed to me as per the judgment of the Special Deputy Collector (TW), K.R.Puram, Dt.22.07.1991 in S.R.No.1072/90 batch of cases, the land held by Sri Karuturi Surya Rao is Ac.3.00 cents in R.S.No.121 and Ac.3.00 cents in R.S.No.122 of Lakshmudugudem village and also verify the land in R.S.No.121 of Lakshmudugudem Village and see that the land Ac.3.00 cts. is in possession of the legal heirs of Sri Karuturi Surya Rao vide Rc.No.SR.81/2005, Dt.21.08.2009. In pursuance of the directions of the Special Deputy Collector (TW), K.R.Puram, I have directed the Mandal Deputy Surveyor, Mandal Revenue Inspector, Buttaigudem and village Revenue Officer, Lakshmudugudem village to conduct field verification and survey and submit reports to this office. This office received their reports. As seen from the field verification and survey reports the R.S.No.121 of Lakshmudugudem village consists of Ac.6.38 cts. The petitioner Sri Yantrapragada Soma Raju is already in physical possession of Ac.3.00 Cts. The applicant Sri Yantrapragada Soma Raju being a successor of Karuturi Surya Rao is entitled for the land Ac.3.00 Cts. As per order in S.R.No.1072/1990 batch of cases, Dt.22.07.1991 as confirmed in the orders of the Hon’ble Court. The petitioner is not entitled any land further in R.S.No.121 of Lakshmudugudem village. In view of the same, the order in W.P.No.25279/2006 is complied, with reference to the Special Deputy Collector (TW), K.R.Puram in Rc.No.SR81/2005, Dt.21.8.2009.” 5. When the contempt case came up for hearing on 15.3.2010, learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare asserted that the petitioner is in occupation of three acres of land in Survey No.121 of Lakshmudugudem village, West Godavari District and that he has two tobacco barons in the said land. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner denied of the petitioner being in occupation of any piece of land in Survey No.121 and also of the petitioner having two tobacco barons therein. 7. On hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, an Advocate Commissioner came to be appointed to make physical verification of the land in dispute and to note the existence of tobacco barons, if any. Sri P.Ravinder, Advocate has been appointed as Commissioner to inspect the land in Survey No.121 of Lakshmudugudem village, Buttaigudem Mandal, West Godavari District after serving notice to the counsel appearing for both the parties and submit a report. 8. Sri P.Ravinder, Advocate Commissioner inspected the land and submitted report. 9. The petitioner also filed objections to the Commissioner’s report. 10. When the contempt case came up for further hearing on this day, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the contempt case, in view of the report filed by the Advocate Commissioner. 11. Permission, as sought for, is accorded. 12. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs. _____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt. 12th April, 2010 PNB/RAR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Contempt Case No.1288 of 2009 DATED : 12-04-2010