Point of law: An avid citizen only awaits for an in-time implementation of a Court order. Therefore, the contemnor/2nd respondent, upon knowing about passing of the order by this Court, should have obtained expeditious order from concerned revenue authority deleting the subject property from list of prohibitory properties to enable him to affect the registration.

ORDER :

1. This contempt petition is a sordid example of how some public officers impertinently violate the orders of a constitutional Court with utter disdain but still cleverly pretend to have tried to implement but were prevented by some rules which made them helpless.

2. The factual matrix of the case which led the petitioner to file instant contempt case is thus:

The property admeasuring an extent of Ac. 4.93 cents in Sy. No. 304/4, 5, 6, 7 and 304/2B situated at Vikruthamala Village, Yerpedu Mandal, Chittoor District was a Government land assigned to the mother of the writ petitioner under Ex-Servicemen quota, as she being the widow of ex-serviceman P. Rangappa, vide DKT No. 39/4/1408, dated 10.08.1998 with a condition not to alienate for a period of 10 years from the date of assignment. After the death of his mother, the petitioner succeeded the said land being her son. While so, the petitioner in or about 2016 intended to alienate his land for his necessities and for that purpose sought market value particulars from the office of the cotemnor/2nd respondent but the said office refused his request on the ground that the land in question was included in the list of Government lands and insisted the petitioner to obtain No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the revenue authorities to receive and process the document for registration.

3. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 25764/2016 before the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh. A learned Single Judge considering the argument of the petitioner that the Government in G.O.Ms. No. 279 Revenue (Assign.I) Department, dated 04.07.2016 dispensed with the grant of NOC in respect of the lands assigned to ex-servicemen and freedom fighters where 10 years period has elapsed from the date of assignment and also considering the earlier order in W.P. No. 23523/2016 on similar subject, allowed the writ petition in terms of the order passed in W.P. No. 23523/2016 meaning thereby the Sub Registrar was directed to receive and register the document presented by the petitioner.

4. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted sale deed to contemnor/2nd respondent. However, he kept registration pending by assigning number as P.135/2018. Having awaited for considerable time, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 12491/2019 seeking writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not releasing the document in P.135/2018 by registering the same, as illegal and arbitrary and for consequential direction. This court having found that assignment was not in dispute and more than 10 years have elapsed since the date of assignment, and as no NOC was required for alienation in view of G.O.Ms. No. 279, allowed the writ petition against the respondents, inasmuch as the submission on behalf of respondents, particularly the contemnor/2nd respondent that he was waiting for the communication from Tahsildar, Yerpedu was baseless and untenable. This Court reiterated that in view of G.O.Ms. No. 279, no NOC shall be insisted for alienation of the subject land and accordingly directed the 2nd respondent to register the document i.e., P.135/2018 submitted by the petitioner if it is otherwise in order, within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

5. In spite of the 2nd writ order, the contemnor/2nd respondent did not register the sale deed. Hence, the instant contempt case.

6. On receiving the notice before admission, the cotemnor/2nd respondent filed counter opposing the contempt case. His explanation is as follows:

Pursuant to the order in W.P. No. 23523/2016, the writ petitioner presented the sale-deed and the then Sub Registrar, Thottembedu kept the document pending by assigning WP. No. 135/2018 as the subject properties are prohibited from registration as per the list of prohibitory properties communicated by the Revenue Authorities. He addressed a letter dated 07.03.2018 to the Tahsildar, Yerpedu seeking clarification as to whether the R