THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH CONTEMPT CASE No.318 of 2009 ORDER: This contempt case is filed alleging that the respondents intentionally and wilfully disobeyed the order, dated 14-02- 2008, passed by this court in W.P.No.2970 of 2008. W.P.No.2970 of 2008 was filed questioning the resumption order passed by the Tahsildar, Ananthapur District, in Proceedings R.Dis.No.B/1639/2007, dated 04-02-2008, and consequently to set aside the same holding that the petitioner is entitled to retain an extent of Ac.2-12 cents in Sy.No.213-27 of Kakkalapalli village, Ananthapur Rural Mandal, Ananthapur District. The said writ petition was disposed of by order, order 14-02-2008, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader for the respondents. The said resumption order was passed on the ground that the petitioner has violated the terms and conditions of D- Form patta by not cultivating the land in question. In W.P.No.2970 of 2008, this court was of the prima facie opinion that in respect of violation of terms and conditions of D- Form patta, the assigned land cannot be resumed under the provisions of the A.P.Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short “the Act”) but in respect of such violation, it is always open for the assigning authority to resume the assigned land under the provisions of Board Standing Order but not under the provisions of the Act. However, as the appeal is pending before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ananthapur, the writ petition was disposed of directing the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ananthapur, to consider and dispose of the appeal filed against the order of the Tahsildar, Ananthapur District, dated 04-02-2008, as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law and that pending disposal of the appeal, the resumption order shall be kept in abeyance. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the resumption order was not kept in abeyance and thus, the respondents have violated the said order of this Court. In W.P.No.2970 of 2008, the Tahsildar, Ananthapur, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ananthapur and the District Collector, Ananthapur, were shown as respondents. But, in the instant case, the Tahsildar, Anantapur and the Mandal Surveyor, Ananthapur, were only shown as respondents. Though the Mandal Surveyor, Ananthapur, is not a party to W.P.No.2970 of 2008, Application No.99 of 2009 was filed to implead him as the 2nd respondent in the present contempt case alleging that the 2nd respondent has interfered with the possession of the petitioner by entering into the land at the behest of the 1st respondent herein and dispossessed the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner sought leave to implead the Mandal Surveyor, Ananthapur, as 2nd respondent in the present contempt case. Accordingly, the said leave application was allowed. It is the case of the petitioner that the land in question was originally assigned in favour of his father vide proceedings, dated 23-11-1976. In fact, the said land was in possession of his forefathers for several decades. It is further stated that he was issued pattedar pass book and title deed in the year 1979 by the revenue authorities and he has been raising crops on the said land. While so, the respondents tried to dispossess him from the land in question in the month of September, 2007 and, therefore, he filed W.P.No.20894 of 2007 seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents therein in interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the land in question without following due process of law as illegal and arbitrary. The said writ petition was disposed of by order, dated 04-10-2007, directing the respondents therein not to dispossess the petitioner from the land in question without following due process of law. It is stated that prior to disposal of the said writ petition, notice in Form.1 under Rule 3 of the Act was issued to the petitioner on 03-07-2007 and as no explanation is said to have been filed, the land in question was resumed under a cover of panchanama, dated 30-07-2007. As the order in W.P.No.20894 of 2007 was said to have been violated by the respondents therein, the petitioner earlier filed C.C.No.1035 of 2007 against the respondents therein. It is stated that till final orders are passed, taking resumption of the land in question under a cover of panchanama is illegal and unsustainable. It is further stated that in fact the petitioner submitted an explanation on 31-01-2008 for the show-cause notice, dated 26-12-2007 and thereafter only the resumption order has been passed on 04-02-2008, against which an appeal was filed before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ananthapur, on 06-02-2008 and pending disposal of the said appeal, W.P.No.2970 of 2008 was filed questioning the proceedings dated 04-02-2008, and the same was disposed of on 14-02-2008 as stated supra. In C.C.No.1305 of 2007, the respondents therein filed counter stating that no steps have been taken to dispossess the petitioner from the land in question but only resumption order has been passed. As it was stated in the counter that the petitioner was not at all dispossessed from the land in question, pursuant to the resumption order, this court was of the opinion that there was no wilful disobedience on the part of the respondents therein and accordingly, liberty was given to the petitioner to file fresh contempt case, if there is any violation of the order of this Court in W.P.No.2970 of 2008, dated 14-02-2008. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that as there is violation of the order of this Court in W.P.No.2970 of 2008, dated 14-02-2008, the present contempt case is filed alleging that the petitioner was erroneously dispossessed and the resumption order was not kept in abeyance and the allegations made in the counter affidavit are incorrect and false and to avoid the contempt case, the respondents have erroneously stated that possession was not taken. Initially, in this contempt case, counter is filed by the Deputy Tahsildar, Ananthapur, who is not a party-respondent in the contempt case, stating that pursuant to the order of this Court in W.P.No.2970 of 2008 directing to keep in abeyance the resumption order, the respondents stopped from interfering with the possession of the petitioner over the land in question. It is further stated that the respondents have not violated the order of this Court, as the resumption order passed by the Tahsildar was kept in abeyance, pending disposal of the appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer. Though it is stated that the resumption order of the Tahsildar is kept in abeyance, no particulars or copy was submitted by the respondents. But, however, it is stated by the learned Government Pleader that no action is taken to dispossess the petitioner from the land in question, pursuant to the order of this Court. It is further stated that the petitioner is not the assignee of Sy.Nos.213/6, 7, 8 and 11 for an extent of 240 sq. yards and the respondents have complied with the order of this Court. After filing the said counter on 02-03-2009, this court made the following order on 12-06-2009, which reads as follows:- “I am of the opinion that to resolve the controversy, it is just and proper to the respondents tp survey the entire land in Sy.No.213/27 as well as Sy.Nos.213/6, 7, 8 and 11 of Kakkalapalli village, Ananthapur District and file a report with reference to the assigned land, assigned in favour of the petitioner of an extent of Ac.2-12 cents in Sy.No.213/27, within a period of three weeks.” Pursuant to the said order of this court, dated 12-06-2009, a report is filed by the Tahsildar, Ananthapur, stating that the land in Sy.No.213/27 was assigned in favour of the father of the petitioner and it was kept waste and uncultivated. There are unauthorized irregular occupations on the southern corner in Sy.No.213/27 by the persons, who were allotted plots in Sy.No.213/7 and 8. It is further stated that neighbouring lands were occupied by some unauthorised 13 persons, but in respect of the assigned land in question is concerned, the beneficiaries have been allotted house sites in the portion covered by the assigned land in Sy.No.213/27, but the allottees have not occupied the plots and there are no constructions except the unauthorized irregular occupation. In the survey report, it is stated that the lay out was made in Sy.No.213/6, 7, 8 and 11 and insofar as Sy.No.213/27 is concerned, though certain plots were allotted, none have occupied them. But, in the additional counter affidavit, it is stated that house site pattas were granted vide proceedings Dis.No.25/1417, dated 15-12-2007 and there are unauthorized irregular occupation on the southern side corner in Sy.No.213/27. It is stated that the beneficiaries, who were allotted house site plots in the portion covered by the assigned land in Sy.No.213/27 have not occupied the plots and there are no constructions except unauthorized irregular occupation. Therefore, it is stated that the present Tahsildar has to take action for evicting unauthorized persons from Sy.No.213/27. It is stated that the appeal filed before the Revenue Divisional Officer is still pending. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents stated that the appeal is still pending and the case is posted on 10- 06-2011. It is further stated that in fact the present Tahsildar has retired from service on 31-05-2011 after attaining the age of superannuation. Heard the arguments of both the learned counsel at length. The only question that arises for consideration is as to whether the respondents have violated the order of this Court in W.P.No.2970 of 2008 ? This Court passed orders in W.P.No.2970 of 2008 directing the respondents therein to keep in abeyance the resumption orders. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that pursuant to the order of this Court, no action has been taken against the petitioner. In fact, the house sites allottees have not occupied the land, but the allottees of some other neighbouring land have occupied southern side corner in Sy.No.213/27. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that pursuant to allotment of house sites in the neighbouring land, allottees have occupied portion of the assigned land and the respondents have not taken any action for eviction of the unauthorized occupants and, therefore, the respondents have violated the order of this Court. In the instant case, the petitioner has not even filed any reply either to the report or counter or additional counter when it was specifically stated that pursuant to the order of this Court the resumption order was kept in abeyance. Further, it is stated that the petitioner was not at all dispossessed and even in fact the allottees were also not dispossessed. But, however, it is stated that some allottees of the plots in the neighbouring land have illegally occupied portion of the land in question. As the Tahsildar, Ananthapur, was transferred to some other Mandal and retired from service, proper and necessary parties to the writ petition i.e., Revenue Divisional Officer and the District Collector were not made parties to this contempt case, who would have implemented the order of this Court had they been parties in the contempt case. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not see any wilful disobedience on the part of the respondents. Therefore, the contempt case is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________ 10-06-2011 Prv