IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Contempt Case No : 964 of 2007 Between: P.Appa Rao and others. ..... PETITIONERS AND Smt.Sesha Shailaja .....RESPONDENT Order: The petitioners state that they were granted house site pattas in an extent of Ac.0.05 cents each situated in Survey No.125/6-Bha of Pendurthy Village and Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, in accordance with the provisions of the Board Standing Orders, vide proceedings, dated 02.01.1993, and had constructed thatched huts and residing therein. When the revenue authorities, without issuing any notice and without following due process of law, sought to dispossess them from the subject land, they filed W.P.No.11680 of 2004. This Court, upon hearing the learned counsel and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, disposed of the said writ petition with the following direction: “If the pattas said to have been granted to the petitioners are not cancelled, and if the petitioners are still in possession, the respondents shall not dispossess or evict them from the land in question without following due process of law.” Now, the petitioners filed the present contempt case alleging wilful disobedience of the said orders of this Court, dated 08.07.2004, contending that on 01.10.2007, the Tahsildar, Pendurthy Mandal, Visakhapatnam, the respondent herein, in utter violation of the orders of this Court, has demolished the constructions in the subject land and constructed a compound wall, without looking into the original pattas granted in their favour and the orders of this Court. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent denying the allegations made by the petitioners and stating that the land in Survey No.125/6 of Pendurthi Village and Mandal, Visakhapatnam is a Government poramboke and no pattas were issued in favour of the petitioners at any point of time. That the pattas produced by the petitioners are not genuine, inasmuch as there are no entries in the revenue records. That pursuant to the representation made by the petitioners on 09.09.2004, the then Tahsildar, Pendurthi examined the pattas submitted by the petitioners and held that they are not genuine one and the petitioners are never in possession of the subject land, vide orders, dated 19.09.2004. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondent. On 12.11.2009, when the matter came up for consideration, the learned Government Pleader produced a copy of the order, dated 19.09.2004, passed by the Tahsildar, Pendurthy holding that pattas submitted by the petitioners are not genuine. A perusal of the same however does indicate as to whether any notice has been issued to the petitioners before passing the said order. Therefore, this Court directed the Revenue Divisional Officer and the Tahsildar to appear in- person before this Court today with relevant record. Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, the Revenue Divisional Officer and the Tahsildar appeared in-person with relevant record. A perusal of the record would disclose that pursuant to the representation made by the petitioners on 09.09.2004, the District Collector, Visakhapatnam vide letter, dated 09.09.2004, directed the Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam to examine the matter and take necessary action, who in turn directed the Mandal Revenue Officer, Pendurthi to examine the matter and take necessary action. Pursuant thereto, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Pendurthy, passed orders, dated 19.09.2004, holding that the pattas produced by the petitioners are not genuine and that the subject land was handed over to the DRDA as per the orders of the District Collector, Visakhapatnam, dated 19.09.1998. At the hearing, though the learned Government Pleader submitted that the petitioners were issued notice before passing the order, dated 19.09.2004, and the same were returned unserved, the fact remains that the order, dated 19.09.2004, does not indicate as to whether any notice has been issued to the petitioners before coming to the conclusion that the pattas produced by them are not genuine. However, in view of the fact that the subject land was already handed over to the DRDA for construction of Training & Technology Development Centre to impart trainings to various SHC women etc., vide orders of the District Collector, dated 19.09.1998, the learned counsel appearing for both the parties agreed for disposal of the contempt case, with the following direction: The Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam, is directed to consider the case of the petitioners for being allotted alternative sites, if they are found eligible, expeditiously. The contempt case is accordingly disposed of. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date:18.11.2009 VGB