P. S. NARAYANA, J.

( 1 ) THIS Contempt case is filed under Sections 10 and 12 of contempt of Courts Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act for the purpose of convenience) praying this Court to punish the respondent who is alleged to have committed the contempt of Court of the order dated 21-11-2001 made by this Court in Writ Appeal No. 1514 of 2001 and for such other suitable orders.

( 2 ) THE facts of the case in nut-shell can be stated as here under:

( 3 ) THE petitioner is the absolute owner of an extent of four acres of land in Survey no-233/24 situate in Nizampet Village, qutubullapur Mandal, Rangareddy District and he has been in possession of the said property. The petitioner was issued patta certificate in form-G of the Laoni rules, 1950 on 15-8-1961 and his pattadar rights were recognised and implemented in the revenue and land records and he was issued pattadar pass book and title deeds. When the petitioner was about to sell this land, he came to know that the registration authorities were directed not to entertain the sale deeds by the Laoni patta certificate holders and consequent thereupon the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 13114 of 2000 contending that since Form G Certificate was issued after conduct of auction and after payment of bid amount the certificate has to be retained as a sale certificate and hence no restrain on alienation can be placed on the petitioner and the learned Single Judge allowed the said writ petition.

( 4 ) THE respondents had carried the matter in appeal in W. A. No. 1514 of 2001 and the Division Bench of this Court by an order dated 21-11-2001 directed the petitioner to submit a representation to the respondents seeking permission to sell the land and the respondents were directed to pass orders on the representation in terms of sections 48 and 58-A of A. P. (Telangana area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 30-11-2001 to the respondent seeking permission to alienate the land. It was also stated by the petitioner that this Court had fixed time limit of eight weeks for consideration and disposal of his representation seeking permission for alienating his patta land and though time had lapsed there was no action on the part of the respondent and inaction on the part of the respondent in not passing an order on his representation will amount to wilful disobedience of the orders made by this court and in the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner had filed the present contempt case.

( 5 ) ON 29-8-2002 this Court issued notice before admission. The learned government Pleader for Revenue had taken notice on behalf of the respondent. This court had stated that pendency of the contempt case does not preclude the respondent-contemnor for complying with the orders of this Court.

( 6 ) THE respondent filed a counter- affidavit taking a stand that in pursuance of the orders of this Court action had been initiated and notices were issued to the petitioner to file documentary evidence in support of his claim. It was also pleaded that the respondent had examined the entire record and passed a detailed order dated 21-9-2002 and the said order also was enclosed. It was further pleaded that the respondent is having highest regard and respect towards the orders of this court and in fact being a public servant he is duty bound to implement the orders of the Court and he had not violated the orders of this Court at any point of time. It was further pleaded that the records pertaining to the present case being very old there is an administrative delay in passing the orders and the respondent also had tendered an unconditional apology in this regard.

( 7 ) ON 1-10-2002 the Contempt Case was admitted and notice was issued in Form no. l to the respondent for his appearance before this Court on 30-10-2002 at 10-30 a. m. But however, this Court reiterated that pendency of this Contempt Case does not preclude the District Collector to pass orders in a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document