HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH C.C.NO.1464 OF 2009 Dt.29.1.2010 Between: Smt.Sogra Begum and another .. Petitioners And The District Collector, Hyderabad, Hyderabad District and others .. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH C.C.NO.1464 OF 2009 ORDER: Heard both the learned counsel. Petitioners filed W.P.No.19529 of 2007 seeking writ of mandamus directing the respondents herein to consider and dispose of the representation dated 30.9.2005 filed for making necessary correction and amendment by including their names in T.S.No.42, Block D, Ward 52 in respect of the land admeasuring 2318.18 sq.yards as part and parcel of house bearing No.5-9-7/2, Saifabad in Town Survey Records. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court by order dated 29.10.2007, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, directing the 3rd respondent herein to consider the representation of the petitioners dated 6.10.2007, which was filed after the representation dated 30.9.2005, in accordance with law. The petitioner filed a representation on 6.10.2007 before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad District, contending that they are the owners of H.No.5-9-7/2 situated at Saifabad, Hyderabad, admeasuring 4165 sq.yards and they have filed O.S.No.1506 of 1993 on the file of VII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for declaration and injunction in respect of portion of H.No.5-9-7/2, admeasuring 2318.38 sq.yards situate at Saifabad, Hyderabad and to include the said area as part and parcel of the said house by carrying necessary correction or amendment in the Town Survey Record. The said suit was dismissed by the trial court by judgment and decree dated 14.8.1997. Thereafter, the petitioners filed C.C.C.A.No.119 of 1997, which was allowed by this Court by judgment, dated 2.11.2001. Accordingly, a request was made on 6.10.2007 to make necessary correction and amendment by including the name in TS.No.42, Block D, Ward 52 as part and parcel of H.No.5-9- 7/2, Saifabad in Town Survey Record as per the judgment and decree of this Court in C.C.C.A.No.119 of 1997, dated 2.11.2001. However, pursuant to the orders of this Court in W.P.No.19529 of 2007, dated 29.10.2007, the 3rd respondent considered the representation of the petitioners dated 6.10.2007 and rejected the same vide memo in Lr.No.B/5356/2007, dated 27.10.2009. The operative portion of the said memo reads as follows: “Further the Tahsildar, Nampally Mandal reported that the Town Survey of Thotaguda Village was conducted during the year 1966-76 under the provisions of A.P.Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 and the final check operation was conducted by the Special Deputy Collector by issuing notices and inviting objections. The Town Survey was impleaded in the TSLR after the publication of the details of survey in A.P. Gazette No.13, dated 28.2.1977. After completion of Town Survey the land in question is recorded as Government Land in TSLR by issuing a notification under Section 13(1) of A.P.Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 and also published in District Gazette No.13, dated 28.2.1977. Thus the entries recorded in the TSLR have become final and become conclusive proof after publication of the notification under Section 13(1) of the said Act unless they are challenged and modified by a decree of Civil Suit within (3) years from the date of publication of the notification in the District Gazette as stipulated under Section 14 of the A.P.Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923. But no person has challenged the said entries by way of filing civil suit within the stipulated period. Hence based on the report of the Tahsildar, Nampally Mandal and based on the records and after examining the representation dated 6.10.2007, you are hereby informed that the representation is considered and rejected since it is not possible to correct the T.S.No.42, Block-D, Ward No.52 relating to H.No.5-9-7/2 as requested by you”. I am of the opinion that the legality and validity of the said memo cannot be decided in the contempt case. However, it is always open for the petitioners to question the said memo in appropriate proceedings. In view of the aforesaid memo of the 3rd respondent, it cannot be said that there is wilful disobedience on the on the part of the 3rd respondent in implementation of the orders of this Court in W.P.No.19529 of 2009, dated 29.10.2007. The contempt case is accordingly dismissed. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. 29.1.2010 kpr