HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH CONTEMPT CASE No.882 of 2010 ORDER: This Contempt Case is filed alleging wilful violation of the order of this Court in W.P.No.10852 of 2010 dated 05.05.2010. Initially, Contempt Case was filed against Sri D.P.Venkatesham, the Tahsildar and, as he retired from service, Smt I.Padmavathi, the Tahsildar, Dornipadu Mandal, Kurnool District is impleaded as the second respondent. The petitioner was granted D-form patta in respect of an extent of Ac.0.03 cents in plot No.50, Survey No.239/B2A2 of Umapathinagar Village, Gundupapala Gram Panchayat, Dornipadu Mandal, Kurnool District vide R-Dis (HS).No.1620/84, dated 18.05.1985. Condition No.9 of the D-form patta prohibits alienation for a period of ten years. The first respondent, for the first time, by order dated 08.04.2010 stayed the construction made by the petitioner in the subject land, which was questioned in W.P.No.10852 of 2010 and, this Court, by order dated 05.05.2010, set aside the order dated 08.04.2010 as no notice was issued to the petitioner and directed the second respondent to pass final orders after giving a reasonable opportunity to put forth her grievance. This Court further directed to maintain status quo till final orders were passed. Thereafter, a notice was given to the petitioner on 07.06.2010 stating that as she did not make any construction in the house site allotted to him, he violated B.S.O. 15(12(3iii) as per the conditions mentioned in the D-form patta and was asked to submit her explanation as to why the patta granted in favour of her husband should not be cancelled. It is stated that, subsequently, she made representation and her statement was also recorded on 17.06.2010 and after considering her representation, resumption order was passed by proceedings dated 28.06.2010. A counter affidavit is filed by the second respondent (Tahsildar, Dornipadu Mandal, Kurnool District) stating that by proceedings dated 28.06.2010 the land of the petitioner was resumed on the ground that the assignee viz. Kilari Nageswara Rao was not in occupation and one Gurram Haribabu was unauthorisedly running Ayurvedic Clinic by raising walls upto lentil levels. It is stated that the second respondent did not initiate any proceedings and, therefore, she has not violated the orders of this Court. Admittedly, the resumption order passed by the first respondent (the then Tahsildar), who retired from service on 30.06.2010, is not bona fide and is contrary to the terms and conditions of the D-form patta. In the first instance, the order was passed on 08.04.2010 on the ground that the bore well dug in the said plot requires to be decided as to whether it belongs to the Panchayat Raj or the Paralytic Hospital. When the said order was set aside by this Court, another notice dated 07.06.2010 was given by the first respondent stating that the conditions of D-form patta were violated. Finally, the order of resumption was passed on 28.06.2010 stating that one Gurram Hari Babu was running Ayurvedic Clinic unauthorisedly and, therefore, the petitioner had violated the conditions stipulated in the D-form patta. The first respondent, however, changed his stand from time to time and determined to resume the land on one pretext or other on the ground of violation of conditions stipulated in D-form patta. The petitioner’s case in her representation was that after assignment of house site in favour of her husband in the year 1985 whose whereabouts were not known, a temporary shed was constructed, that she has three children, that due to the drought conditions, the shed was affected and started reconstruction and that the construction was later stayed by the first respondent in his order dated 08.04.2010. Pursuant to the direction of this Court, the statement of the petitioner was recorded by the Tahsildar and without considering the contentions urged either in her representation or in her sworn statement, resumption order was passed on the ground of violation of the conditions stipulated in the D-form patta, which is in utter violation of the orders of this Court. As per the conditions of the D-form patta, prohibition of alienation is for a period of ten years and even assuming that the house site was transferred, it cannot be said that condition No.9 of the said patta was violated after a lapse of 20 years. Though the resumption order is in violation of the orders passed by this Court and as the Tahsildar, who passed the resumption order, retired from service instead of punishing him for violation of the orders of this Court, I deem it fit and proper to undone the injustice caused to the petitioner by restoring back his possession from the date of passing the orders of resumption. The Contempt Case is, accordingly, closed. V. ESWARAIAH,J Date:25.03.2011 usd