HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY C.C.No.1699 of 2010 Date : 28-1-2011 Between : Burra Chandraiah .. Petitioner And K.Narsimha Reddy, Tahsildar, Bhoopalapally Mandal, Warangal District and others .. Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Sri P.Prabhakar Reddy Counsel for respondent : Sri M.Vidyasagar The Court made the following : ORDER: This Contempt Case is filed alleging willful disobedience of order dated 6-10-2010 in W.P.No.25174/2009. I have heard Sri P.Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.Vidyasagar, learned counsel for the respondent. The petitioner filed W.P.No.25174/2009 for a mandamus to declare the action of respondents in interfering with his possession over land admeasuring Ac.4- 06 guntas in S.No.287/3 of Jangaid village, Bhupalapally Mandal, Warangal District. Respondents 1 and 3 filed separate counter affidavits in the said Writ Petition wherein it was specifically alleged that the petitioner has tampered with the revenue record including pattadar passbooks and title deeds by showing the extent of land assigned to him as Ac.4-06 guntas in S.No.287/3 as against Ac.0-06 guntas which was actually assigned to him. It is also further stated that the petitioner has encroached land in S.No.287/1 and that taking advantage of the fact that it was a low lying area, the petitioner has occupied the same. It was further averred that the petitioner’s application for correction of entries in the revenue record was rejected by the respondent against which the petitioner filed an appeal before the Sub-Collector and Revenue Divisional officer, Mulug, Warangal District, which was stated to be pending. In the light of those facts, this court has disposed of the Writ Petition while declining to give a finding on the respective pleas advanced by the parties on merits. It was further observed that if respondent Nos.1 and 2 in the Writ Petition were of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to hold the extent of Ac.4-06 cents, they are free to take appropriate action against him for his eviction in accordance with law and that so long as the petitioner is in physical possession of the property, he cannot be evicted without following due process of law. In the Contempt Case, the petitioner alleged that on 18-11-2010, the respondent and his subordinates have entered the land in S.No.287/3 and destroyed teak and babul trees. In support of his plea, the petitioner has filed photographs to show that measurements were taken and a J.C.B. was engaged to fell the trees. The respondent filed counter affidavit wherein he has inter alia averred that while the petitioner is concerned with Ac.0-06 guntas in S.No.287/3, he was cultivating the land in S.No.287/1 admeasuring Ac.2-15 guntas which is a Government land. It is further stated that S.No.287 comprises Ac.24-32 guntas, that assignments were made to 21 eligible persons who were given assignments in the said survey number and that the petitioner is in possession of Ac.0-06 guntas in S.No.287/3 and Ac.0-05 guntas in S.No.287/4 and that except these extents the petitioner is not in possession of any other land. The respondents filed proceedings dated 6-11-2010 issued in Appendix XXXII under Section 7 of A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905 wherein the petitioner was given a notice to show cause why he shall not be evicted from Ac.1-05 guntas in S.No.287/1. The respondent also filed proceedings dated 18-11-2010 addressed by the Mandal Revenue Inspector to the respondent wherein it is stated that the extent of Ac.2-15 guntas in S.No.287/1 was taken possession. Relying upon these proceedings, Sri M.Vidyasagar, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that what was actually taken possession was the extent of Ac.2-15 guntas in S.No.287/1 and not the land in S.No.287/3. The learned counsel further stated that neither the respondent nor his subordinates have ever entered the land in S.No.287/3. Though the petitioner made serious allegations against the respondent for undue interference with his possession of land in S.No.287/3 and destruction of the properties, he failed to substantiate this allegation. On the other hand, the explanation offered and the material filed by the respondent while denying the allegations made by the petitioner convince this court to hold that the property which the respondent has taken possession of is one situate in S.No.287/1 and not the land in S.No.287/3. For the above mentioned reasons, I do not find any reason to proceed in the Contempt Case against the respondent. The Contempt Case is accordingly dismissed. _____________________ C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy.,J Date : 28-1-2011 AM