THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CONTEMPT APPEAL No.7 of 2009 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice G.V.Seethapathy) This Contempt Appeal is filed challenging the order, dated 16.09.2009, in C.C.No.1030 of 2009, wherein the said contempt case filed by the appellant herein was closed. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant- petitioner. None appears for the respondents. Perused the records. The appellant herein filed Writ Petition No.13210 of 2007 seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in conducting survey without issuing notice to him as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to Section 6 (1) of the A.P. Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 and is also in violation of principles of natural justice and for a consequential relief to set aside the survey conducted behind his back. By an order, dated 11.02.2009, the said writ petition was allowed, setting aside the entire survey conducted on 05.06.2007 as well as the steps taken in pursuance of it. It was observed that it is left open to the respondents to conduct survey duly observing the procedure prescribed under the A.P. Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 and the Rules made thereunder. It was further observed that in case, the appellant herein-petitioner is found to be in possession of any Government land, the possession thereof shall be recovered after initiating the proceedings under the A.P.Land Encroachment Act, 1905. Subsequently, the appellant herein filed C.C.No.1030 of 2009 alleging that the respondents have conducted the survey without issuing proper notice to him and thereby, violated the order, dated 11.02.2009, passed by the Court in W.P.No.13210 of 2007. In the affidavit, filed in support of the Contempt Case, the appellant herein has stated that the respondents issued a notice on 26.06.2009 informing that a survey will be held on 30.06.2009. But, as he was to contact his lawyer in respect of a case pending before the Mobile Court, he requested the authorities, at the time of serving the notice, to postpone the survey and fix the same after 4 or 5 days. He complained that the respondents, however, proceeded to conduct the survey behind his back and panchanama was drawn fixing the boundaries of his patta in Sy.No.139/78 measuring Ac.4- 34 guntas and stated that they took possession of adjacent poramboke land in Sy.No.139/2 measuring Ac.5.02 guntas and further allotted the said land to Lavani pattadars, Avanchi Narasaiah and 19 others. The appellant herein, therefore, allege that the act of the respondents in conducting the survey without his presence at the time of survey amounts to an act of contempt of the order, dated 11.02.2009, passed by this Court in W.P.No.13210 of 2007. The respondents filed a counter opposing the same. By the impugned order, dated 16.09.2009, the learned single Judge disposed of the Contempt Case by observing as under: - “The dispute was about the survey of land that is in possession of the petitioner. After hearing the parties at length, this Court passed order dated 11.09.2009 directing that a fresh survey be conducted. On 14.09.2009 the survey has since been conducted and the sketch and panchanama were prepared. In case, the petitioner feels aggrieved by that survey, he can institute proceedings in relation thereto. Therefore, the survey conducted on 30.06.2009 and consequential steps in relation thereto are set aside and the present survey shall hold good until it is modified, in accordance with law.” Thus, as seen from the above extracted portion of the impugned order, the learned single Judge did not go into the merits of the Contempt Case, but closed the same in view of the subsequent event of conducting the survey on 14.09.2009 in pursuance of the order passed on 11.02.2009 (incorrectly typed as 11.09.2009 in the impugned order). Thus, in view of the subsequent survey conducted on 14.09.2009, the learned single Judge has merely closed the Contempt Case with liberty to the appellant-petitioner to institute necessary proceedings if he is aggrieved by the survey conducted on 14.09.2009. Consequently, the survey conducted on 30.06.2009 and the consequential steps in relation thereto were also set aside. Learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner contended that the above observations of the learned single Judge upholding the survey conducted on 14.09.2009 is unwarranted and does not fall within the ambit of contempt proceedings initiated by the appellant- petitioner. He further contended that now that the respondents have conducted the survey without notice to the appellant-petitioner, the order of this Court in W.P.No.13210 of 2007 was violated. He further contended that the only question that arises for consideration in the said proceedings would be whether there was any act of contempt on the part of the respondents? As seen from the affidavit filed by the appellant, in support of the contempt case, notice was, in fact, served on the appellant. But, however, he could not make himself available to be present at the time of survey on the ground of some personal inconvenience. Further, a perusal of the order passed in W.P.No.13210 of 2007 would disclose that the direction given therein to the respondents while conducting the re-survey was only to follow the procedure prescribed under the A.P. Survey and Boundaries Act and the Rules made thereunder and there was no specific direction as such that they shall give a notice to the appellant. However, as the provisions of the A.P. Survey and Boundaries Act contemplate issuance of a notice to the affected and parties concerned for conducting the survey, the respondents are bound to issue such a notice and admittedly, the respondents have issued such a notice to the appellant. It is only the appellant who did not make himself present at the time of survey i.e., on 30.06.2009 for his own reasons. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was any act of contempt on the part of the respondents in conducting the survey on 30.06.2009. However, in view of the subsequent event of conducting survey on 14.09.2009 in pursuance of the orders dated 11.02.2009, passed in W.P.No.13210 of 2007, the learned single Judge had rightly set aside the survey conducted on 30.06.2009. The grievance of the appellant-petitioner is met. As the survey conducted on 30.06.2009 was set aside, the question of going into the merits of the contempt case will not arise and therefore, the contempt case was rightly dismissed by the learned single Judge, with the observations as extracted above. Viewed from any angle, there are no merits in the Contempt Appeal and as such, the same is liable to be dismissed. Hence, subject to the above observations, the Contempt Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA Dated:05.11.2009 Dr __________________________ JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY