THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Contempt Case No.358 of 2011 Dated 20th June, 2011 Between: Konari Sridevi and another …Petitioners And Smt.P.Bhavani, the Sub-Registrar, Stamps & Registration Department, Anakapalli, Visakhapatnam District …Respondent Counsel for the petitioners: Sri P.Roy Reddy Counsel for respondent: AGP for Revenue The Court made the following: ORDER: This contempt case is filed alleging wilful disobedience of order, dated 07.09.2010, in W.P.No.21866 of 2010. The petitioners herein filed W.P.No.21866 of 2010 for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents therein in treating the lands admeasuring Ac.0.72 cents situated in Survey No.414/21 and Ac.0.28 cents in Survey No.414/23 of Seetanagram Village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, as Government land as illegal and arbitrary. The said writ petition was allowed holding that out of Acs.7.22 cents of land in Survey No.414, only Ac.0.25 cents was classified as vagu poramboke and that no notification was issued under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908, which was substituted by the A.P.Act 19 of 2007, and accordingly, a Mandamus was issued to respondent No.3, who is the contemnor herein, to receive the document proposed to be presented by the petitioners and register the same in accordance with law. Alleging that the said order has been violated, the present contempt case is filed. In the affidavit filed in support of the contempt case, it is inter alia pleaded that the petitioners presented the document on 27.10.2010 before the contemnor and that instead of registering the same, she addressed letter, dated 28.10.2010, to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam seeking clarification. As this Court felt that this action of the contemnor prima facie is in utter disregard of the order of this Court, the contempt case was admitted and personal presence of the contemnor was ordered. Accordingly, the contemnor has been present during all the hearings. The contemnor filed a counter affidavit, wherein she has inter alia denied the petitioners’ approaching her with a request to register the documents on 27.10.2010 and that the letter addressed by her to the Revenue Divisional Officer is consequent upon her receiving the order of this Court. As this Court felt that the contemnor’s plea of the petitioners not approaching her does not appear to be probable, adjourned the case to today. Today, at the hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue on instructions from the contemnor, who is present in the Court, submitted that the contemnor has registered the document presented by the petitioners on 15.06.2011. The above facts would reveal that even though the respondent tried to defy the order of this Court by addressing letter, dated 28.10.2010, to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam impliedly suggesting that the order of this Court is subservient to the authority of the Revenue Divisional Officer, wisdom seemed to have dawned on the contemnor, after filing of the contempt case and she has taken damage control measures by receiving the document presented by the petitioners and registering the same. Though the action of the respondent appears to be contemptuous, as she has purged the contempt by not only tendering unconditional apology but also registering the document presented by the petitioners, I do not propose to proceed further with the contempt case against her. The contempt case is accordingly closed and the respondent is discharged from the contempt proceedings. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 20th June, 2011 VGB