Non-compliance of court order does not amount to contempt of court if the order was complied with within the prescribed time period.

JUDGMENT

M.Ganga Rao, J. - The petitioners filed this contempt case under the provisions of Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short 'the Act') complaining that the respondent-contemnors have not complied with the order passed by this Court on 22.03.2019 in W.P.No.3809 of 2019, whereunder and whereby this Court directed the respondents therein to consider the petitioners' online application Nos.RMU011801091561 dated 28.07.2018 and APDL011800157591 dated 09.11.2018 and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law and issue E-Pattadar passbooks and title deeds to the petitioners and mutate their names in the revenue records within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

2. The allegation of the petitioners is that in spite of submitting representations dated 20.04.2019 and 25.07.2019 for implementation of the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.3809 of 2019 to the 3rd respondent, the respondents wilfully and deliberately violated the orders of this Court and thereby they are liable for punishment.

3. The respondents 1 to 3 filed their respective counters stating that the 3rd respondent - Tahsildar, Kurnool Mandal soon after joining in the 3rd respondent's office, he has given an endorsement to the petitioners vide Rc.B/606/2019 dated 16.07.2019 and served the same on the petitioners through the Village Revenue Officer, Joharapuram Village on 17.07.2019. The said endorsement reads thus:

'As per Govt Memo No.24140/ASn.1(1) 2003-3 Rev- Dated:22.08.2003 & CCLA Ref No. B2/2225/2003 dated: 20.09.2003 the tanks, Kunta ponds lake etc are the sources of irrigation and these water bodies are helping in maintenance of ecological balance including the scare resources of ground water and indispensable for protection and improvement of environment. The water sources included projects, reservoirs tanks, Kuntas, steam pond lake river canal etc. As such river Porambokes attracts the ban imposed by the Government accordingly CCLA directed in CCLA Ref No. B2/2225/2003 dated: 20.09.2003 to include all lands in the PROHIBITORY ORDER BOOKS.

As per Rule 26 (6) of A.P. Rights in Land & Pattadar Pass Books Rules, 1989, a Title deed or Pass book shall be given only to those persons who are in actual possession of the land.

As per Sec 2 (1) of A.P. Rights in Land & Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1991, 'land' means land which is used or is capable of being for purpose of agriculture including horticulture but does not include land used exclusively for Non - Agriculture Purpose.

As per Section 5(5) of ROR Act, 'an Appeal shall lie to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kurnool.'

4. But, the petitioners by way of an Additional affidavit complained that the 3rd respondent to avoid contempt proceedings with an antedated endorsement dated 16.07.2019 was issued, rejecting the claim of the petitioners. The 3rd respondent's official namely Krishna Devarayulu, VRO, Joharapuram Mandal called the 1st petitioner over his mobile No.9505360669 to the 1st petitioner's mobile No.7032800743 at about 9 a.m. to 9.30 a.m. on 17.09.2019, by playing fraud with the 1st petitioner that the 3rd respondent issued favourable orders in favour of the petitioners and asked the 1st petitioner to come the office of the 3rd respondent between 11.30 a.m. to 12 noon. Accordingly, the 1st petitioner, believing his words, went to the office of the 3rd respondent and the VRO, Johapuram at the instigation of the 3rd respondent served the copy of Endorsement dated 16.07.2019 issued by the 3rd respondent on 17.09.2019 at 11.30 a.m. Therefore, the 3rd respondent played fraud with the 1st petitioner to avoid contempt proceedings in C.C.No.625 of 2019. The antedated endorsement of the 3rd respondent dated 16.07.2019 has served to the 1st petitioner on 17.09.2019 and thereby violated the orders of this Court and that the orders of the 3rd respondent are not served within a time prescribed by this Court.

5. The 3rd respondent by way of Additional cou