THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CONTEMPT CASE Nos.769 and 789 of 2010 Dated 6th July, 2010 Contempt Case No.769 of 2010 Between: Kasuva Pentamma @ Prameela and two others …Petitioners And Suresh Babu …Respondent Counsel for the petitioners : Sri K.Raghuveer Reddy Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Revenue The Court made the following COMMON ORDER: These two Contempt Cases are filed alleging wilful disobedience of order dated 25.11.2009 in Writ Petition Nos. 6115 and 4612 of 2002 respectively. The petitioners herein filed the abovementioned writ petitions, wherein they have questioned the quantum of conversion charges fixed for conferring freehold rights on the petitioners by conversion from leasehold rights. This Court, by order dated 25.11.2009, while declining to interfere with the quantum fixed by the respondents, however, permitted the petitioners to pay the amounts within a period of three months with the direction that on such payment being made, the respondents shall register the plots in favour of the petitioners at their cost. In pursuance of the said order, the respondent has issued memo dated 10.05.2010, wherein while calling upon the petitioners to pay the conversion charges as demanded earlier, he has however added penalty for letting out the building on rent from January, 1999 to May, 2010 and penal interest on conversion charges. In the present Contempt Cases, the petitioners have alleged that demand of the amounts under various heads other than conversion charges is in deliberate violation of the order of this Court passed in the above writ petitions. A detailed counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondent, wherein it is, inter alia, stated that the abovementioned amounts were demanded in terms of G.O.Ms.Nos 1188, Revenue (Q) Department, dated 22.12.1987; 853, Revenue (Assn-III) Department, dated 24.08.1994; 578 dated 21.09.2002 and CCLA Ref.No.S3/900/2003, dated 26.02.2004. In my opinion, the action of the respondent in demanding the abovementioned amounts would not constitute willful violation of the order of this Court because the issue pertaining to the petitioners’ liability to pay those amounts was not the subject matter of the writ petitions. The only issue that was raised in the writ petitions and was adjudicated was whether the quantum of conversion charges demanded by the respondents was proper or not. This Court merely dismissed the writ petitions by upholding the quantum. Therefore, it cannot be said that demand of further amounts violates any part of the order of this Court passed in the writ petitions, more so, when the respondent has placed reliance on CCLA reference dated 26.02.2004, wherein it is specifically envisaged that the lessee shall pay the lease rent up to the date of conversion. If the petitioners dispute the demand towards the lease rent for the periods after the expiry of the lease periods, they are always entitled to question such demands by separate proceedings. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the respondent has not committed any contempt by issuing the memo referred to above. The Contempt Cases are accordingly dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to raise a dispute on the quantum of lease rent, penalty and interest as demanded in memo dated 10.05.2010. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that as the time limit prescribed in memo dated 10.05.2010 had expired, the respondent may be directed to accept the amounts by permitting the petitioners to deposit the same without prejudice to their rights within a reasonable time. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondent is directed to accept the payment, if made by the petitioners within a period of two (2) weeks from today, and execute the documents required for conversion. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 6th July, 2010 vrn