HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY CONTEMPT CASE No. 929 OF 2011 Dated 4th November, 2011 Between: A. Ranga Bhashyam ………Petitioner And Sri V. Seshadri and two others ………..Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri V. Jagapathi Counsel for the respondents : Government Pleader for Revenue The Court made the following ORDER: This contempt case is filed alleging wilful disobedience of the judgment dated 16-12-2010 in Writ Petition No. 31687 of 2010. In the above mentioned writ petition filed by the petitioner herein with the grievance that the Tahsildar, Puttur has not been disposing of his application for issuance of pattadar passbooks and title deeds and instead he has been awaiting the instructions from the District Collector, Chittoor, this Court by order dated 16-12-2010 disposed of the said writ petition with a direction to the Tahsildar, Puttur to consider the petitioner’s application for mutation and for grant of pattadar passbooks and title deeds without expecting any instructions or directions from the District Collector, Chittoor, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Alleging that in spite of the specific direction to the Tahsildar, Puttur to apply his mind independently and dispose of the petitioner’s application without obtaining instructions from the District Collector, the former has addressed a letter to the latter who in turn has sent a communication giving instructions with regard to the manner of disposal of the petitioner’s application, the present contempt case is filed. Initially, the contempt case was filed against Sri Arogya Raj, the present District Collector, Chittoor and Sri V. Srinivasulu, Tahsildar, Puttur Mandal. On a perusal of the counter affidavits filed by the District Collector and the Tahsildar, this Court was convinced that when the letter was addressed from the District Collector’s office Sri V. Seshadri was the District Collector. He was suo motu impleaded besides Sri M. Prasad Babu, the then Tahsildar of Puttur who is said to have addressed the letter in alleged violation of the order of this Court. Accordingly, Sri V. Seshadri, the then District collector; Sri M. Prasad Babu, the then Tahsildar, Puttur and Sri V. Srinivasulu, the present Tahsildar of Puttur have personally attended the Court and have also filed counter affidavits. In the counter affidavit of Sri V. Seshadri, it is inter alia stated that neither the letter addressed by the then Tahsildar was placed before him nor the letter which was sent to the Tahsildar in his name was in his knowledge. He has further stated that the District Revenue Officer has singed the offending letter in the name of the District Collector as per the practice prescribed vide G.O.Ms.No.77, dated 22- 01-1968. At the hearing, it has come out that after the filing of the contempt case, the property was mutated in the name of the petitioner in the revenue records and pattadar passbooks and title deeds are issued to the petitioner. Sri V. Jagapathi, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that while substantial part of the grievance of the petitioner has been redressed, his client is disabled from selling the property in view of the letter addressed by the District Collector, Chittoor to the registering authority not to register the lands as they are treated as government lands. The learned Government Pleader for Revenue submitted that with the mutation of the petitioner’s name in the revenue records and issuance of pattadar passbooks and title deeds, the District Collector will withdraw the said letter immediately. The admitted fact is that despite the order passed by this Court preventing the Tahsildar, Puttur Mandal from seeking instructions from the District Collector, he has nevertheless addressed a letter to which the District Collector has replied. Undoubtedly, this conduct of the Tahsildar and the District Collector is in violation of the order of this Court. But, the Tahsildar has expressed regrets pleading lack of proper knowledge in addressing the letter and he has offered unconditional apology for the lapse committed by him. As noted above, the then District Collector, Sri V. Seshadri stated in his counter affidavit that he was not aware of the letter addressed in his name to the Tahsildar. Taking the above facts into consideration and also the fact that the grievance of the petitioner is redressed by mutating his name in the revenue records and issuing pattadar passbooks and title deed which constitutes a mitigating circumstance, this Court does not intend to proceed further with the contempt case. As undertaken by the learned Government Pleader, the District Collector shall withdraw the earlier letter addressed to the registering authority forthwith. Subject to the above direction, the contempt case is closed and the contemnors are discharged from the contempt proceedings. C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated: 4th November, 2011 ks