IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH CONTEMPT CASE No.838 of 2008 In W.P.No.19096 of 2007 (Contempt Case U/s. 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act to punish the Respondents herein for violating, disobeying the Order of the High Court dated _______ in WPMP No.________ /WP No. ________ Between: Y.Pedda Venkata Reddy S/o,late Sunki Reddy R/o.Thummalla Village, Vaddepalle Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Mahabubnagar District, Mahabubnagar. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Gadwal, Mahabubnagar District. 3 Sri E.Kishan, The Mandal Revenue Officer, VAddepalli Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. (RR 1 & 2 are not necessary parties) .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.J.JANAKIRAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: The Court made the following: Form-NIC-OGS/CC{CHP} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH CONTEMPT CASE No.838 of 2008 in WRIT PETITION No.19096 of 2007 JUDGMENT: This contempt case has been filed complaining that the 3rd respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer, Vaddepalli, Mahaboobnagar District has willfully and wantonly violated the orders of this Court passed in W.P.19096/2007 dated 13.09.2007. The petitioner filed the said writ petition seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in proposing to distribute his land admeasuring Ac.25.10 gts. in Sy.No.235 and Ac.13.27 gts. in Sy.No.236 of Tummali village, Vaddepalli Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District to the landless poor without following due process of law and without initiating any Land Acquisition proceedings, as illegal and arbitrary. The said writ petition was disposed of before filing any counter and based on the representation made by the Government Pleader that the respondents never made any attempt to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the said lands and that they have no intention to distribute the said lands to the landless poor, and if the said lands are required, the Land Acquisition proceedings would be initiated and without following due process of law, the petitioner would not be dispossessed. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of, directing the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the said land without following due process of law. The order of this Court dated 13.09.2007 was communicated to the respondents, as is evident from the proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Gadwal dated 12.10.2007. It is stated in this contempt case that after disposal of the writ petition, the said land was distributed in favour of the landless poor in utter violation of the orders of this Court. It is stated that originally the father of the petitioner late Sunki Reddy had purchased the said land in the auction conducted by the Government and deposited the entire amount and possession was delivered in his favour and he enjoyed the same till his death in 1975 and subsequently the petitioner succeeded the said property and has been enjoying the same without any interruption. It is stated that originally the said lands belong to Yapadinne Ranga Reddy and Yapadinne Venkata Reddy and both of them died issueless, and subsequently the Government declared the said land as Lawaris and put in auction and his father participated in the said auction and became highest bidder and deposited the entire bid amount. It is stated that one B.Siva Reddy, claiming to be the legal heir of the original owner, got filed suit in O.S.34/1997 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Gadwal for declaration and possession against the Government and the petitioner herein and the said suit was dismissed on 03.01.2007, against which first appeal in A.S.847/2002 was pending on the file of this Court. A counter has been filed by the 3rd respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer stating that the land originally belong to Yapadinne Ranga Reddy and as he died issueless the said land was declared as escheat/bonavacantia vide Notification No.E3/8736/95 dated 27.03.2003 and the possession of the said land was taken over by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Vaddepally on 08.06.2003 and the same was placed before the Taluq Level Assignment Review Committee for assignment to the needy beneficiaries, and accordingly, patta certificates were issued in favour of beneficiaries, vide District Collector’s Reference No.E3/328/2008 dated 27.05.2008. It is also stated that one B.Shiva Reddy filed suit in O.S.34/1997 on the file of the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Gadwal for declaration of title and the said suit was dismissed on 03.01.2002. Aggrieved by the same, the said B.Shiva Reddy filed appeal in A.S.847/2002 which is pending before this Court. It is stated that the petitioner has not filed any claim petition and objections against the declaration of the land as Escheat/Bonavacantia, and as such, as per the order of the Joint Collector dated 27.03.2003 in File No.E3/8736/1995 the said land was vested with the Government under A.P.Escheats and Bonavacantia Act, 1974 and thus, it is stated that the petitioner was not at all in possession as on the date of filing of the writ petition and the land was taken over possession by the Government in 2003 itself. On the other hand, the petitioner filed a reply and submits that the land was never taken over possession by the Government in 2003 and in fact, the suit filed by B.Shiva Reddy was dismissed in which the petitioner is a party respondent. It is further stated that as per the proceedings of the Sub-Collector dated 15.06.1973 it is mentioned that the father of the petitioner by name Sunki Reddy purchased the said land in the auction conducted by the Government and bid amount was deposited in the Government Treasury and possession was delivered to him and he enjoyed the same till his death and thereafter the petitioner is in continuous possession of the same. Thus, it is contended that the said land is not in Government custody from 09.06.2003 but it is in the custody of the petitioner alone. I have perused the judgment of the Senior Civil Judge, Gadwal passed in O.S.34/1997. One Mr.Beechipallaiahgari Siva Reddy filed the said suit against the District Collector, Mahaboobnagar District and various other private individuals and the petitioner herein was shown as Defendant No.10 in the said suit. The said suit was filed for declaration that the said B.Siva Reddy was the absolute owner of the schedule lands. The said B.Siva Reddy also put forth a contention stating that the cause of action for the said suit arose on 15.07.1973 when the Sub- Collector Gadwal passed an order vide his proceedings No.C/3609/72, dated 15.07.1973 advising him to get the matter adjudicated by a Civil Court having jurisdiction by initiating appropriate proceedings, and until such decision is obtained the lands in question shall remain under Government supervision, and the said B.Siva Reddy also stated that cause of action for the suit further arose on 28.10.1996 when he got issued the legal notice demanding delivery of possession of the plaint schedule property by accepting his title and as the same is not complied with on 01.03.1997, and when the Joint Collector-cum-Local Officer, Mahaboobnagar got issued a Gazette Notification calling for the claims to the plaint schedule property and on 11.05.1997 when he submitted his claim requesting the Joint Collector to accept his title and to deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule property. The said suit was dismissed mainly on the question of limitation on the ground that the plaintiff having alleged that the cause of action for the suit arose on 15.07.1973 filed the suit in 1997 which is barred by limitation. Nowhere in the said judgment the possession, right and title of the petitioner herein has been accepted or discussed. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the order of the Joint Collector, Gadwal his father purchased the land in question. The invisible orders of the so-called proceedings go to show that both the brothers who are the original owners died issueless without any heirs and as such the land in question was declared as lawaris and put to auction in 1355 Fasli. One Sunkireddy resident of Thummella i.e. the father of the petitioner was the highest bidder and it was finalized in his name on 18 Mehar 1355 Fasli and auction amount of Rs.500/-was deposited in the Treasury. Since the auction purchaser is in possession of the said property, one Keshava Reddy also claimed himself as legal heir and in that context the Ek-Sala Auction conducted and cultivation allowed in favour of whosoever bids the highest. It is stated that in view of the dispute raised with regard to conduction of Ek-Sala auction, the objector was given liberty to approach the Civil Court and till then the land was directed to be kept in the Government supervision directing not to allow any encroachment. The Ek-Sala auction amount was directed to be deposited every year. Thus, it appears that as per the order of the Joint Collector, dated 15.06.1973 the father of the petitioner was the auction purchaser for one year in respect of the lands in question and admittedly, no document has been filed by the petitioner with regard to right and title as to how his father became the lawful owner. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner has got any right or title over the said land. Having regard to the facts of the case and in view of the material available on record, I am of the opinion that the petitioner was not in possession of the lands in question as on the date of the filing of the writ petition and therefore, it cannot be said that there is willful and deliberate disobedience on the part of the respondents. The Contempt Case is accoridngly dismissed. However, it is always open for the petitioner to work out his remedies either for recovery of the Ek-Sala auction amount if he never cultivated the lands in question or for declaration of his right and title over the lands in question, if any, in appropriate proceedings. No order as to costs. ___________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J Dated: 18.09.2009 Dsr