IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CONTEMPT CASE Nos.15 and 16 of 2011 C.C.No.15 of 2011 Between: Konduru Suresh Babu & another. ..... Petitioners AND Office of the Sub-Registrar, Nallapadu, Guntur District & another. .....Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: None Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Revenue The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CONTEMPT CASE Nos.15 and 16 of 2011 COMMON ORDER: These two contempt cases are filed alleging willful disobedience of order dated 28.09.2010 in Writ Petition Nos.10484 and 13859 of 2010. By the said order, this Court permitted the petitioners to make applications before respondent No.2 for amendment of entries in the record of rights with the direction to the respondents to consider the same and pass appropriate orders under Section 5(1) of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971. Alleging that the applications made by the petitioners have not been considered, these contempt cases are filed. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.2, it is inter alia stated that in pursuance of the abovementioned order passed in the Writ Petitions, respondent No.2, on verification of the record, made an endorsement on 10.12.2010 rejecting the petitioners’ request for amendment of revenue records and that the said order was dispatched through registered post under acknowledgement due to petitioner No.1 on the same day and that the postal authorities have returned the said letter with endorsement “left without instructions”. Respondent No.2 has thus pleaded that the order of this Court is complied with. No reply affidavit is filed by the petitioners controverting the above- noted averments contained in the counter affidavit. Inasmuch as respondent No.2 has complied with the order of this Court by disposing of the petitioners’ application for amendment of record of rights, the latter failed to make out any case to proceed against respondent No.2 in contempt. The contempt cases are accordingly dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 25.02.2011 ES