The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Contempt Case No.672 of 2011 Date: 25.07.2011 Between: 1.Ganuga Sambaiah and 8 others ..... Petitioners AND Mr.S.Luther, Mandal Revenue Officer, Pedakakani Mandal, Guntur District. .....Respondent Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri M.Vidyasagar Counsel for Respondent: AGP for Revenue The Court made the following: Order: This Contempt Case is filed alleging wilful disobedience of Order, dated 18-04-2011, passed by this Court, in C.C.No.308 of 2011, by the respondent. This is the second round of Contempt Case, which the petitioners are driven to resort to, by the patently indifferent attitude of the respondent. The petitioners have filed W.P.No.25125 of 2010 complaining of inaction of the respondent in issuing pattadar passbooks and title deeds in their favour. This Court has disposed of the said Writ Petition with the observation that under the provisions of the A.P.Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, it is incumbent upon the respondent herein to dispose of the applications received for mutation of names in the revenue records and also for issuance of pattadar passbooks and title deeds after following the due procedure prescribed therein. Accordingly, a direction was issued to the respondent to dispose of the petitioners’ applications, if received, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the said order after following the due procedure. As the respondent has not complied with the said order, the petitioners filed C.C.No.308 of 2011. During the course of hearing of the said Contempt Case, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, representing the respondent, stated that due to communication gap, the respondent could not comply with the Order of this Court passed in the above-mentioned Writ Petition and that the respondent has already prepared the pattadar pass books and title deeds and that as and when the petitioners approach him, he will deliver the same. In response thereto, the learned Counsel for the petitioners stated that his clients will be present before the respondent on 15-04-2011. In view of the statement of the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue that the respondent will hand over the pattadar pass books and title deeds to the petitioners, the said Contempt Case was disposed of. The petitioners are forced to file the present Contempt Case by stating that on 15-04-2011, they were present before the respondent, but he has refused to hand over the pattadar pass books and title deeds. On 24-06-2011, this Court has admitted the Contempt Case and directed the presence of the contemnor. On 22-07-2011, the contemnor was present apart from filing the counter-affidavit wherein he has stated that even though he kept the pattadar pass books and title deeds ready, the petitioners have not approached him on 15-04-2011 and that the office record does not show receipt of the alleged representation, dated 16-04-2011, from the petitioners. In my opinion, the respondent has not come out with the truth. The petitioners, having complained of inaction on the part of the respondent in issuing pattadar pass books and title deeds, would have no reason, whatsoever, not to be present on 15-04-2011 for receiving the same. If the petitioners were not present on the said date, nothing prevented the respondent from issuing a notice calling upon them to collect the pattadar pass books and title deeds. Admittedly, he did not follow this procedure. The respondent, being a public servant, is not only answerable to the Court but also to the public at large. His indifferent and contemptuous acts have forced the petitioners to repeatedly approach this Court by way of the Writ Petition and also two Contempt Cases. Ordinarily, the respondent would have been liable for severe punishment, but, as he has taken remedial steps, in producing the pattadar passbooks and title deeds in the Court, which were handed over the learned Counsel for the petitioners by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, and tendered unconditional apologies, I prefer to take a lenient view. The respondent is let off with a warning not to repeat such conduct in future. The Contempt Case is closed accordingly. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 25th July, 2011 LUR