THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY CONTEMPT CASE No.624 of 2010 ORDER: This contempt case is filed under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, alleging that the respondent herein has violated the order dated 09.12.2009 passed by this Court in W.P.M.P.No.28335 of 2009 in W.P.No.21812 of 2009. When the documents presented by the petitioners were not being considered for registration, the petitioners filed W.P.No.21812 of 2009 before this Court. By order dated 09.12.2009 in W.P.M.P.No.28335 of 2009 in W.P.No.21812 of 2009, this Court directed the 2nd respondent therein, who is the respondent herein, to consider registration of documents bearing P.Nos.147, 148, 149 and 150 of 2009 submitted by the petitioners and release the same. Further, the respondents were directed to pass orders under Section 71 of the Stamps and Registration Act, if the documents are not registrable for any reason. In this contempt case, it is the case of the petitioners that though this Court passed order dated 09.12.2009 in W.P.M.P.No.28335 of 2009 in W.P.No.21812 of 2009 referred supra, the respondent is neither passing any orders under Section 71 of the Stamps and Registration Act (for short ‘the Act’) nor releasing the documents by registering the same. The Sub-Registrar, Kukatpally, Ranga Reddy District, who is the respondent herein, has filed the counter affidavit, wherein while denying the various allegations made by the petitioners, it is stated that the documents presented by the petitioners, which were given P.Nos.147 to 150 of 2009, were pertaining to cancellation of earlier cancellation deeds bearing document Nos.2624/2001, 1055/99 and 2625/2001. It is also stated that as the respondent has no power to cancel the earlier cancellation deeds by registering the documents presented for such purpose, he addressed a letter to the District Registrar, seeking clarification in that regard. It is further stated that in compliance of the order dated 09.12.2009 passed by this Court in W.P.M.P.No.28335 of 2009, the respondent has passed orders under Section 71 of the Act on 20.05.2010 and the petitioners received the same on 24.05.2010. Further, the delay in passing the orders under Section 71 of the Act on 20.05.2010 is clearly explained. A perusal of the order dated 09.12.2009, which is complained to be not complied with in the present contempt case, discloses no positive direction to register the documents presented by the petitioners, but it reveals a clarification that if there are reasons for rejection, the same shall be recorded as contemplated under Section 71 of the Stamps & Registration Act. Since it is the contention of the respondent that in compliance of the order dated 09.12.2009 passed by this Court, he has already passed orders under Section 71 of the Act on 20.05.2010, which is not in dispute, it cannot be said that there is deliberate and willful violation of the directions of this Court. Inasmuch as the respondent passed orders under Section 71 of the Act on 20.05.2010 and the same have already been challenged by the petitioners by way of filing a separate writ petition before this Court, I do not find any grounds to entertain this contempt case against the respondent and the contempt case is devoid of merits. Accordingly, this contempt case is dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY 26.04.2011 v v