THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CONTEMPT CASE No.53 of 2011 Date of Order:04.03.2011 Between: Teli Lingaiah ..Petitioner and D.Satish Chandra and another. ..Respondents The Court made the following Order: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CONTEMPT CASE No.53 of 2011 ORDER :- Petitioner filed W.P.No23836 of 2003 to declare the order, dated 31.10.2003, of the Joint Collector, Nizamabad in proceedings No.P2/3/2002 confirming the order, dated 06.02.2002, of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Bodhan in A2/903/2001 against the orders, dated 30.03.2001, of the Mandal Revenue Officer as arbitrary and illegal, contending that the Mandal Revenue Officer after collecting the stamp duty and registration fee regularised the sale transaction in favour of the petitioner and mutated the lands in his favour. One Ala Bhaskar Reddy filed a suit for partition being O.S.No.5 of 1978, which was compromised and a final decree was passed on 01.05.1998. Thereby, he made an application to the District Collector for implementation of the Court order, who in turn forwarded the same to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Bodhan. The Mandal Revenue Officer registered the said representation as a case in file No. C/A2/7616/99, and passed orders misconstruing it as a change in the revenue records. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, which was dismissed and a revision before the Joint Collector, which was also dismissed. Questioning the same, he filed the present writ petition. Pending the writ petition, the order passed by the Joint Collector for change of the revenue records was suspended by this Court by way of interim order in WP.MP.No.29940 of 2003, dated 12.11.2003. In spite of the suspension of the proceedings, the 2nd respondent-Tahsildar by order, dated 09.11.2010, passed an order directing the Village Revenue Officer to carry out the amendment in survey No.123/1 to an extent of Acs.0.30 guntas and in survey No.123/2 to an extent of Acs.0-30 guntas situated at Chekki Tarfa village by deleting the name of the petitioner. In spite of this Court granting suspension of the earlier order passed by the Joint Collector, the order of the 2nd respondent/Tahsildar to carry out amendment amounts to contempt. Hence, the present contempt case is filed. On issuing form-I Notice, both the respondents present in the Court and filed their respective counters. It is stated by the 1st respondent that after filing the contempt case, the petitioner filed an application on 11.01.2011 bringing to the notice of the 1st respondent/Revenue Divsiional Officer about the orders passed by the 2nd respondent on 09.11.2010. He verified the records and found that Ala Bhaskara Reddy misrepresented before the High Court and filed W.P.No.13318 of 2010 and obtained orders on 13.09.2010 to consider his representation, dated 18.08.2009 and 10.03.2010 and act upon the same. But he has not mentioned about the pendency of the present writ petition and obtaining interim suspension. The 1st respondent after verification, issued notice to both the parties to appear before him in the enquiry on 23.02.2011 and set aside the order passed by the 2nd respondent, dated 09.11.2010, in compliance of the interim orders passed by this Court. The 2nd respondent also filed a counter stating that on setting aside the order passed by him, the 1st respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer passed an order on 24.02.2011 directing the Village Revenue Officer to delete the name of Ala Bhaskar Reddy in the revenue records and to carry out the amendment by incorporating the name of the petitioner. Hence the orders have been complied with and expressed that they will be more careful in future and will not repeat the mistakes and tendered his unconditional apology and the same is accepted. Considering the averments made by the respondents in their respective counter affidavits, this Court does not find any ground to proceed against the contemnors/respondents under the Contempt of Courts Act. The respondents are hereby discharged from the Form-I notice issued by this Court. The Contempt Case is, accordingly, closed. ____________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J March 4, 2011 Lmv