B. S. A. SWAMY, J.

( 1 ) LETTERS Patent Apeal Nos. 184 of 2002 and 185 Of 2002 are filed against the common order of the learned Single Judge dated 11-9-2002 in C. C. No. 493 of 2001 and c. CNo. 1211 of 2001, where under a finding was recorded that the respondents- government has wilfully and deliberately violated the common order passed by this court in W. P. Nos. 6511 and 6513 of 1999 dated 11-8-1999. The respondent in c. C No. 185 of 2002 (sic. 1211 of 2001) filed a wrong sworn affidavit in W. P. No. 6513 of 1999 for which he is liable for perjury apart from other consequences. But the learned judge has taken a lenient view on the contemnor, since he was retiring from service by the end of that month, further in view of an unconditional apology offered by him, therefore passed the following order:-"taking into consideration that the respondent is at the fag end of his service and that he is retiring from service by the end of this month, I am inclined to take a lenient view of the matter and not to initiate further proceedings against him for the perjury. Under these circumstances, and in view of the fact that it is now found that the land has been resumed by virtue of the proceedings of the then Deputy collector, it is not necessary that the petitioners shall be entitled only for the land which was actually excavated. The fact that the petitioners were not allowed to enjoy the land and the land was resumed in the year 1998 they are entitled for compensation as per the guidelines contained in g. O. Ms. No. 1307, dated 23-12-1993. Accordingly, the contempt cases are disposed of directing the respondent to work out the ex gratia which is payable to the petitioners to the extent of Ac. 24. 82cts. of land and arrange to pay the same to them or their legal heirs within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. "

( 2 ) THE factual background of these cases is that the petitioners filed W. P. No. 65ll of 1999 and W. P. No. 6513 of 1999 questioning the action of the respondents in resuming the assigned lands through impugned proceedings in Re. No. E. 235/95, dated 18-10-1998 for excavation of Srisailam right bank canal without paying ex gratia to which they are entitled to as per G. O. Ms. No. 1307, dated 23-12-1993. There writpetitioners were disposed of along with another writ petition by order dated 11-8-1999. The order reads as follows:"under these circumstances, the writ petitions are disposed of with a direction that the petitioners shall file a detailed representation to the respondents giving the extents of land assigned to them and the date of resumption of land or dispossession from the respective lands and other details as may be required by the authorities within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. On such representation, the respondents shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders keeping in view the directions of the Government in g. O. Ms. No. 1307 dated 23-12-1993 within aperiod of six weeks thereafter. "

( 3 ) SINCE the above orders were not complied with by the authorities concerned, c. C. No. 493of 2001 and C. C. No. 1211 of 2001 were filed. One Ganpathi Rao, Special Deputy collector, L. A. O. S. R. B. C. Nandyal, Kurnool district filed a counter stating that Mr. M. A. Basil, Special Deputy Collector, L. A. who signed the notices for resumption of assigned lands etc. never worked as L. A. O. S. R. B. C and his signatures on the memo dated 18-10-1998 was fabricated and were forged. As such the alleged resumption of the lands belonging to the petitioners is absolutely false and they never resumed the lands of the petitioners.

( 4 ) NEXTLY it was found on verification that an extent of Ac. 1-03 cents was subject to excavation of soil and the entire land was barren. The learned Judge having considered the pleas has given notice to Mr. Basil who retired from service. In his affidavit he stated that he was full in-charge of the additional charge of t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document