HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CONTEMPT CASE No.450 of 2010 Date: 10th June 2010 Between: Voleti Venkata Subbaiah & others. … Petitioners And The Agent to Government and Collector, East Godavari District & others. … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CONTEMPT CASE No.450 of 2010 ORDER: This contempt case is filed under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, alleging that respondent No.6 herein has violated the directions issued by this Court in the order, dated 22nd of November 2007, passed in W.P.M.P.No. 31161 of 2007 in W.P.No.23930 of 2007. When it was the case of the petitioners in the writ petition that they are in possession of the lands covered by Survey Nos.177/1, 178/1, 181 and 182, totally admeasuring 10 Acres 17 ½ cents, situated at Lothupalem village of Devipatnam Mandal in East Godavari District by virtue of Ryotwari patta granted in Case No.2058, dated 10th of August 1976 by the Settlement Officer, Rajahmundry, this Court passed interim orders, staying dispossession of petitioners from the subject lands. Earlier also, petitioners have filed Contempt Case No.414 of 2008 against the then Tahsildar, alleging interference in the above said land. Counter affidavit was filed in the said contempt case, stating that the petitioners were not in possession and enjoyment of the subject lands for the last ten years, much less, as on the date of filing of the writ petition by them. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the present contempt case is filed, alleging that there is a change in the office of Tahsildar and presently, there is interference by the present Tahsildar i.e. respondent No.6. In the present case also, a detailed counter affidavit is filed, reiterating the statement made in the counter affidavit filed in the earlier contempt case, and further, it is stated that respondent No.6 has never interfered with the possession and enjoyment of petitioners over the subject lands and no proposals were made for sale of usufruct of the trees existing therein. Though it is alleged by the petitioners that there is interference by respondent No.6 with the possession and enjoyment of petitioners over the subject lands, but the same is categorically denied by the respondents in the counter affidavit. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that respondent No.6 has violated the directions issued by this Court. It is also to be noticed that even in the earlier counter affidavit, it is stated by the respondents that the petitioners were not in possession and enjoyment of the subject lands. In view of the statement made in the counter affidavit, no case is made out to proceed further in the contempt proceedings. For the aforesaid reasons, this contempt case is closed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 10th June 2010 ajr