HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CONTEMPT CASE No.1070 of 2010 Date: September 06, 2010 Between: Katika Ramachander. … Petitioner And 1. L. Kishan, Tahsildar, Patancheru Mandal, Medak District and another. … Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CONTEMPT CASE No.1070 of 2010 ORDER: By interim order dated 30.06.2010 in W.P.M.P. No.19037 of 2010 in W.P. No.15103 of 2010, this Court directed the Tahsildar, Patancheru Mandal, Medak District and the Village Revenue Officer, Patelguda village, Patancheru Mandal, Medak District not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner in respect of his land in Sy.No.12 of Patelguda village, Patancheru Mandal, Medak District. Complaining of violation of the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed the present contempt case. 2. It is his case that the Village Revenue Officer, Patelguda village, Patancheru Mandal interfered with his possession over the subject property and threatened to file a criminal case against him in spite of being informed of the orders passed by this Court. 3. The Tahsildar, Patancheru Mandal and the Village Revenue Officer, Patelguda village filed separate counters stating that they had not interfered with the possession of the petitioner over the land in Sy.No.12 of Patelguda village either before or after passing of the interim order by this Court in W.P. No.15103 of 22010. They therefore denied the petitioner’s allegation that they had violated the interim order passed by this Court. 4. The petitioner, by way of reply, stated that owing to the interference by the Village Revenue Officer, Patelguda village, Patancheru Mandal he had made a representation on 22.6.2010 to the Tahsildar, Patancheru Mandal which did not evoke any response and therefore, he was constrained to file the writ petition. He reiterated his allegation that the respondents restrained him from cultivating the subject land leading to the filing of the present contempt case. 5. In the light of the afore-stated contradictory pleadings, it cannot be held with any certainty that the respondents violated or disobeyed the orders passed by this Court. By way of sworn affidavits, the respondents denied that they had disobeyed the order passed by this Court. There is no reason to doubt the veracity of the statements made by the Government officials by way of these sworn affidavits. However, their unequivocal stand that they did not interfere with the petitioner’s possession over the subject land in Sy.No.12 of Patelguda village is taken on record. Needless to state, they are bound by the same. 6. The contempt case is accordingly closed. ___________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date: September 06, 2010. BSB