HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Contempt Case No.1638 of 2010 Date: January 31, 2011 Between: Mohd. Ibrahim Khan, S/o.Mohd. Ismail, Aged about 51 years, Occ: business, R/o.H.No.302C, Innovation Enclave, 12-13- 476, Street No.2, Lane 5, Tarnaka, Secunderabad – 500 017 … Petitioner And Sri P. Venkateshwarlu, Dy. Collector and Tahsildar, Quthbullahpur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District … Respondent Order: Willful and deliberate violation of order dated 13-08-2010, passed by this court in W.P.No.19939 of 2010, by the respondent is the complaint in this contempt case filed under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Petitioner claims that he is the owner of land admeasuring about Ac.0.12 guntas equivalent to 0.12 hectares in Gagillapur village and Gram Panchayat, Quthbullapur Mandal, Medchal, Ranga Reddy District, having purchased the same from its earlier owners, viz. Smt.Ghouseunnisa Begum and others, by registered sale deed dated 23-08-2007. He made an application seeking mutation of his name in respect of the said land in revenue records before the respondent, who is the competent authority under the provisions of the A.P.Record of Rights in Land and Pattedar Pass Books Act, 1971. When no orders were passed on his application, he approached this Court by way of W.P.No.19939 of 2010. This Court, by order dated 13-08- 2010, disposed of the said writ petition directing the respondents to complete the enquiry and pass appropriate orders. When the matter is taken up, a copy of Memo No.A/1138/2010 dated 04-11-2010, issued by the Deputy Collector & Tahsildar, Quthbullapura Mandal, is placed before this court, wherein it is stated that as per the spot inspection and demarcation by the Mandal Surveyor, it is revealed that the subject land of the petitioner is covered by road, i.e. Balanagar to Narsapur road, and there is no balance land available for considering the request of the petitioner; accordingly the request of the petitioner was rejected. It is pleaded by learned counsel for petitioner that respondent is not considering the matter in proper perspective and, having colluded with the promoters of a real estate venture in the adjoining land, he has issued the memo dated 04-11-2010. In the order dated 13-08-2010 passed by this court in W.P.No.19939 of 2010, the claim of the petitioner was not examined on merits; this Court merely directed to pass appropriate orders on the application of the petitioner. Whether vacant land is available, or not, and the legality of memo dated 04-11-2010 issued by the respondent cannot be the subject-matters of the contempt case. If the petitioner is aggrieved of memo dated 04-11-2010, he may pursue remedies under the A.P.Record of Rights in Land and Pattedar Pass Books Act, 1971, but he cannot question the same in this contempt case. Although there is some delay in implementing the order of this court, as much as memo dated 04-11-2010 has been issued pursuant to the directions of this court, this court is of the view that it is not fit case to proceed further under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Contempt case is accordingly dismissed. However, it is made clear that petitioner is at liberty to question correctness or otherwise of memo No.A/1138/2010 dated 04-11-2010 by pursuing remedies open to him. ______________________ (R. SUBHASH REDDY, J) January 31, 2011 MRR