HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Contempt Case No.1319 of 2006 Order: This contempt case, under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is filed against respondents 3 to 5 herein alleging that they have violated the directions issued by this court in the order dated 31-07-2006 passed in W.P.No.4063 of 2006. 2. The petitioner herein, who was the petitioner in W.P.No.4063 of 2006, sought directions by way of Mandamus to restrain respondents 3 to 5 herein from interfering with his possession over an extent of Ac.5.00 guntas in Sy.No.163/2 situated at Majeedpur village, Medchal Taluq, Ranga Reddy District. It was his case therein that his father, late Sri K. Veeraswamy, was assigned land to an extent of Ac.5.00 guntas in Sy.No.163/2 of Majeedpur village, Medchal Taluq, Ranga Reddy District and was issued patta certificate by the Tahsildar, Medchal, vide No.B1/6407 dated 24-06-1982. It was, further, his case that after the death of his father, the original assignee, he has inherited the said property and though he is in possession of the same by virtue of grant of patta to his late father, there is interference by the respondents. In the writ petition, counter affidavit was filed by the respondents stating that the said land which is being claimed by the petitioner is included in the Reserve Forest Block, Lalgadi and the same was notified under Section 29 of the Hyderabad Forest Act, 1355 Fasli vide notification No.212 dated 19-08-1953 of Rural Reconstruction Department. In the writ petition, a separate affidavit was filed by the revenue authorities admitting the assignment of the land in question in favour of the late father of the petitioner and in the said affidavit it is stated that as there was a claim from the Forest Department, to put an end to the controversy between the Revenue Department and Forest Department, a joint inspection was ordered to be conducted vide Memo No.12654/Asn.V (1)/2006-3 dated 22-07-2006. 3. In view of the stand of the respondents disputing the claim of the petitioner with regard to his possession over the land in question, the writ petition was disposed of by order dated 31-07-2006 directing the respondents to complete the process of inspection as per the memo dated 22-07-2006. 4. In this contempt case, it is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to the order of this court dated 31-07-2006, passed in the writ petition, a joint inspection was conducted and a sketch is prepared by the Deputy Director, Survey and Land Records, Hyderabad on 30-05-2007 vide proceedings No.DD/SPL/1/5/2007, by recording a finding that the disputed land is outside the forest boundary. It is alleged in this contempt case that in spite of such demarcation of land, which is in possession of the petitioner, there is further interference with the possession of the petitioner, and, as such, the same is in violation of the directions issued by this court. 5. Heard Sri S. Satyam Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, the Addl. Advocate General, learned Government Pleaders for the respondents and perused the material on record. 6. Though the petitioner claims possession over the disputed land basing on the sketch stated to be drawn by the Deputy Director, Survey and Land Records on 30-05-2007, but during the course of arguments, the learned Addl. Advocate General has placed before this court a copy of the proceedings of the Commissioner and Director of Survey and Land Records, A.P., Hyderabad, dated 30-06-2007, issued in Progs.No.S2/5553/07, in which it is stated that Sri B. Raghunatha Rao, Deputy Director, Survey and Land Records, who is stated to have made inspection and prepared a sketch on 30-05-2007, has never worked as Deputy Director during the relevant period. It is stated that he was holding the post of Deputy Director only till 23-04-2007; thereafter he stayed away from duty applying leave for a part period and in the meanwhile he was awarded punishment and reverted to the post of Assistant Director on 22-05-2007. As such, it is stated that as on 30-05-2007, on which date he is stated to have submitted the sketch prepared by him, he was not holding the post of Deputy Director, Survey and Land Records. Referring to the said aspect, in the proceedings dated 30-06-2007, issued by the Commissioner and Director of Survey and Land Records, A.P., Hyderabad, the report dated 30-05-2007 is declared as mala fide and void and it is also stated that criminal prosecution is ordered against the said Sri B. Raghunatha Rao. Further, it is brought to the notice of this court that, subsequently, a joint inspection was conducted and report dated 30-07-2007 was prepared and the same shows that the disputed land is partly falling in forest block of Lalgadi, in an extent of Ac.3.25 guntas and remaining extent of about Ac.1.50 guntas is outside the forest block. It is submitted that in view of the inspection done by the respondents, by drawing a sketch, the directions of this court are complied with. 7. It is submitted by learned counsel fort he petitioner that though the subsequent survey was conducted with effect from 24-07-2007, the same was not done as per the directions of this court and the petitioner was not issued any notice before conducting survey. It is submitted that the petitioner was served notice only on 27- 07-2007, whereas the survey was conducted on 24-07-2007 itself. 8. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Addl. Advocate General that though steps to conduct survey had commenced on 24- 07-2007, the actual survey had taken place between 27-07-2007 and 30-07-2007 and the petitioner was served notice on 27-07-2007, which is evident from the endorsement made in the records. 9. Primarily, this contempt case is filed alleging that in spite of the fact that the petitioner was in possession of the land as per the sketch prepared by the Deputy Director, Survey and Land Records on 30-05-2007, there is interference with the possession of the petitioner by the respondents. But, from the proceedings of the Commissioner and Director of Survey and Land Records, A.P., Hyderabad, dated 30- 06-2007, it is clear that the sketch which was prepared is not acted upon and is also declared void by recording reasons. In view of the subsequent survey conducted on 30-07-2007, showing that an extent of Ac.3.25 guntas is falling within the forest block and the remaining extent is falling outside the forest block, it is not possible for this court to record any finding on the plea of the petitioner that he is in possession of the subject land and that there is interference by the respondents, in contravention of the directions issued by this court. If there is any legal infirmity in conducting survey and filing report dated 30-07-2007, it is open to the petitioner to question the validity of the said report, but, it cannot be said that there is deliberate violation on the part of the respondents in complying with the directions issued by this court, so as to punish the respondents, under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. No contempt, as alleged, has been made out by the petitioner. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, the contempt case deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. _______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. August , 2009 MRR