IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NISAR AHMAD KAKRU AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CONTEMPT CASE NO.187 OF 2010 DATED:16.8.2010 Between: N.V.S.V. Ramakrishna Rao … Petitioner And J. Shyamala Rao District Collector Visakhapatnam, and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NISAR AHMAD KAKRU AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CONTEMPT CASE NO.187 OF 2010 ORDER: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Shri Nisar Ahmad Kakru) The basic order dt.8.7.2004 against which writ petition was filed may be noticed. “Adverting to the references first cited, I request you to get an appeal filed against the orders of the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Pendurthi issued vide proceedings in I.A. No.1/91, dt.09.01.93, by the present Mandal Revenue Officer, Visakhapatnam before you and dispose of the same under the provisions of I.A. Act, 1956, in case if no appeal is filed previously.” The above reproduction makes it clear that the Collector had directed the Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam, to get an appeal filed before himself by the Mandal Revenue Officer which was not approved of by the writ Court, consequently set aside by judgment dt.11.12.2007 with liberty to the respondents to proceed against the petitioners therein in accordance with law, in case they feel that the proceedings dt.09.1.1993 are illegal. Contention of the respondents as gathered from the Minutes of the meeting of Visakhapatnam District Forest Protection Committee dt.6.11.2009, is that the land in question is ‘reserved forest’. On the basis of the facts so set out, the Committee directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to take immediate action for cancellation of the pattas and to call for explanation from the concerned Mandal Revenue Officer/Tahsildar. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that such an order could not have been passed because it runs contrary to the final judgment passed in W.P. No.849 of 2007. We have gone through the said order. In essence it empowers the Department to proceed afresh against the petitioner in accordance with law, therefore, we do not find anything wrong with the fresh proceedings initiated against the petitioner. Accordingly, Contempt Case is dismissed. VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J NISAR AHMAD KAKRU, CJ 16-8-2010 B. Narsinga Rao