ORDER :

1. Alleging willful and deliberate violation of the Order, dated 12.09.2018, passed in W.P.No.32703 of 2018, by the respondent, the present Contempt Case is filed under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

2. The above mentioned Writ Petition came to be filed, seeking issuance of Writ of Mandamus to declare the inaction on the part of the respondent No.3 in considering the petitioner’s application, dated 15.05.2018 and 18.06.2018 in accordance with the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 and the Rules made therein as illegal and arbitrary.

3. Vide order, dated 12.09.2018 in W.P.No.32703 of 2018, the Court passed an order, the operative portion of which is as under:

“…..directing the petitioner to submit a fresh application through online enclosing all the relevant documents in respect of the subject land, in which event, the 3rd respondent/Tahsildar shall deal with same and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, as early as possible, preferably within a period of three to four months from the date of submission of fresh application after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and all concerned”.

4. Subsequent to the order passed by this Court, the petitioner is said to have made an application on 26.09.2018, which was rejected on 12.10.2018 though the date of hearing was fixed on 20.10.2018 in the notice dated 12.10.2018. Hence, it is pleaded that the Tahsildar has committed Contempt of the Court for not passing the order in terms of the Order, dated 12.09.2018.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly submits that no opportunity was given to the petitioner to present the case and an order, if any came to be passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is further stated that the notice, dated 12.10.2018, was received on 12.10.2018 itself and an order came to be passed on the very same day rejecting the request. Hence, the direction of this Court, directing the authorities to give an opportunity of hearing has not been complied with, leave alone passing of the order.

6. A counter came to be filed by the Tahsildar/respondent No.3 disputing the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. It is stated that an online application was made on 26.09.2018 through Mee Seva and also a manual representation to the Tahsildar with a request to mutate his name in revenue records, in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.0.20 cents situated at Sy.No.77/1 and Ac.0.22 cents situated at Sy.No.76/1 of Ramrajupalli Village of Kadapa Mandal. As per the counter, notices were issued to (1) Smt. N.H. Pyarijaan, (2) Smt. Palagiri Lalithamma, (3) Sri Ponnolu Chandrasekhar Reddy to attend before the Tahsildar, Kadapa on 20.10.2018 along with the documents. It is said that Palagiri Lalithamma and Ponnolu Chandra Sekhar Reddy appeared and submitted documents in support of their plea. The material filed by both of them was verified. It is stated in the counter that the petitioner herein did not submit any substantial evidence showing his statutory right over the land, namely as to how the subject land was acquired by him.

(a) It is further stated that the subject land shown as patta land in the revenue records is in the names of Rahambi and Palagiri Subbaiah and the same was also recorded in the names of their successors. Pattadar Passbooks/Title Deeds were also issued in their favour, as such the remedy for the petitioner lies elsewhere. It is stated that the online application of the petitioner, dated 26.09.2018, was disposed of vide proceedings dated 26.12.2018 and the same was communicated to him on 27.12.2018 by registered post acknowledgment due.

7. The grounds raised in the counter affidavit are re-agitated before this Court by the learned Government Pleader for Revenue.

8. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the notice and the order came to be passed on the very same day which is evident from the