THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM CONTEMPT CASE No. 1152 of 2011 Dated: 5-11-2011 Oral Order: This contempt case alleges wanton disobedience of the order of this Court dated 28-12-2006 in W.P.No.23713 of 2005, by respondents 5 to 7 and inaction by respondents 1 to 4. By the judgment dated 28-12-2006 this Court allowed the Writ Petition No. 23713 of 2005; declared respondents 5 to 8 therein (including respondents 5 to 7 herein) to have brazenly and in flagrant defiance of the Rule of Law interfered with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner of his property of an extent of Ac.4-29 guntas in Sy.No. 281, Ac.1-16 guntas in Sy.No.282 and Ac.1-26 guntas in Sy.No. 285 of Kuntloor village of Ranga Reddy District; with costs of Rs.1,00,000/- payable by respondents 5 to 8 therein jointly and severally; of which Rs.50,000/- was directed to be paid to the petitioner and Rs.50,000/- to the Secretary, AP State Legal Services Authority, Hyderabad. Respondents 5 to 8 therein (respondents 5 to 7 herein) preferred Writ Appeal No. 18 of 2007 against the orders of the learned single Judge. By the judgment dated 30-4-2010 the appeal was dismissed even in respect of award of costs. The petitioner now alleges that though the lands were handed over to the petitioner under a panchanama by the Mandal Revenue Officer, he is unable to cultivate the lands quietly. There is a continuous endless threat by respondents 5 to 7 herein. In the circumstances pleaded, the petitioner seeks a direction to respondents 1 to 3 herein to provide him police protection for pursuing agricultural operations in his lands. On behalf of the non-official respondents a counter affidavit is filed, clearly and categorically denying any interference by these respondents in respect of the lands of the petitioner which was the subject matter of W.P.No. 233713 of 2005. The respondents assert that they are the owners and in possession of lands in Sy.Nos. 270, 270/B, 271 and 280 admeasuring Ac.14-01 guntas at Kuntloor village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District while the petitioner claims to be the owner of the lands in Sy.Nos.281, 282 and 285 of Kuntloor village, Ranga Reddy District; that the answering respondents are in no way concerned with the petitioner’s lands which are not even contiguous lands and that they are not interfering in any manner with the petitioner’s lands, in transgression of the orders of this Court in the writ petition. The Inspector of Police, Hayathnagar Police Station-the 3rd respondent herein has filed a counter-affidavit stating that the complaints of the petitioner with regard to his forcible dispossession from the lands were registered and investigation is in process. The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks a direction from this Court for survey and demarcation of his lands so as to avoid continual attempt by the non-official respondents, of interference with his property. A contempt case is not an appropriate Forum for resolution of factual disputes. The petitioner’s right in respect of the lands in Sy.Nos.281, 282 and 285 of Kuntloor village has been declared in the judgment of this Court, reiterating the orders passed by the statutory Tribunals, this Court and the Supreme Court. If the petitioner has any subsisting grievance as to interference with those declared and settled rights in respect of the enumerated property by the non-official respondents, it is proper to approach a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction and not by way of this contempt application. The contempt proceeding is quasi criminal in nature. In the absence of a clear evidence and proof beyond reasonable doubt of contumacious disobedience of the orders of this Court, no sanction in contempt including deprivation of liberty of the alleged contemnor could issue. For the aforesaid reasons, the contempt case is dismissed with liberty preserved in the petitioner to pursue appropriate remedies before the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction; and before the Executive Agencies of the State if the petitioner is of the view that the non-official respondents are indulging in any conduct prohibited by law. No costs. ________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 5th November, 2011. GRR