( 1 ) PETITIONERS along with 38 others filed W. P. No. 33276 of 1998 inter alia seeking a direction to the Collector, visakhapatnam District and the Mandal revenue Officer, Visakhapatnam Mandal, not to dispossess them from their respective house plots in S. No. 1/2 in the lay out plan approved under resolution No. 3-A dated 1-7-1970 of Yendada Gram Panchayat purchased by them under registered sale deeds from their vendor A. Radha-krishnamurthy and filed W. P. M. P. No. 40900 of 1998 therein seeking a direction to the respondents in the writ petition not to dispossess them from their respective house plots pending disposal of the Writ petition wherein a learned single Judge by his order dated 13-11-1998, passed the following order :"the learned Government Pleader for Assignments takes notice and requests two weeks time for filing counter. In the meanwhile, the respondents are directed to maintain status quo existing as on today in all respects, until further order. "which order is still in force. Alleging that the respondents violated the above interim order by issuing a notice in Form No. 1 as per Rule 3 of the Rules framed under the a. P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short the Act ) petitioners filed this petition to punish the respondents for the contempt committed by them.

( 2 ) THE case, in brief, of the petitioners is that about two or three days prior to their filing this petition, some persons, at the instance of the revenue authorities, highhandedly started digging pits in their sites, in spite of their objection and their being informed of the above interim orders of the court, and so they got issued a lawyer notice dated 9-4-2005, to the respondents, which was received by them on 12-4-2005, and in spite thereof they were served notices in Form No. 1 to show cause why they should not be evicted from the plots purchased by them.

( 3 ) PRIMA facie, since there is nothing to show that 1st respondent violated the order dated 13-11-1998 in W. P. M. P. 40900 of 1998 and since it is the 2nd respondent that issued notice in Form No. 1 he only was directed to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt, whereupon he filed his counter-affidavit alleging that after the predecessor in his office, vide the resumption order dated 16-11-1987 in Rc. No. 2196/87/ha, resumed the land, petitioners and others made a representation to the district Collector alleging that they purchased house plots from A. Radhakrishna- murthy under registered sale deeds and filed w. P. No. 33276 of 1998 and obtained an interim direction of stay from dispossession, but since the land was already resumed and since their purchase was subsequent to the resumption from the original assignee, they cannot claim any right in the land which is under the custody of the Government for construction of house under rajiv Gruha kalpa Scheme and petitioners, if they feel that they are eligible for assignment of land, can apply under the rajiv Gruha Kalpa scheme".

( 4 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that since the direction of this Court is to"maintain status quo in all respects", 2nd respondent issuing notices in Form No. 1 to the petitioners during the pendency of the interim order is but a violation of the interim order of this Court.

( 5 ) THE contention of the learned Assistant Government Pleader is that since the land was resumed way back in the year 1987 and is in possession of the revenue department from that time onwards, and since petitioners claim to have purchased the land from the original assignee after he was evicted from the land, 2nd respondent by merely issuing notices in Form No. 1 of the rules framed under the Act cannot be said to have violated the order of this Court and contends that if the Court were to feel that there is a contempt by the 2nd respondent, he tenders apology. She faintly contended that 1st became aware of the Interim orders only after he received notice in this

Click Here to Read the rest of this document