O R D E R:

This contempt case has been filed complaining willful disobedience on the part of the Respondents in implementing the order, dated 13.09.2017 in W.P.No.30600 of 2017.

2) Heard Sri Y. Nagi Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri P. Subash, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

3) This Court by order, dated 13.09.2017 while allowing the writ petition, set aside the proceedings, dated 20.07.2017 of the Tahsildar and directed the Tahsildar, Hanumanthunipadu Mandal, Prakasam District to consider the request of the petitioners for issuance of pattadar passbooks (e-passbooks), as requested by them, in accordance with the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

4) As per the material available on record, the order of this Court is served on the Respondents on 25.10.2017. From that date, within six weeks, they have to implement the order of the Court. As the order is not complied with within the stipulated period, the petitioners filed the present contempt case on 17.12.2017.

5) It is reported across the Bench that the 1st Respondent Smt. G. Savitri Devi, Tahsildar is no more. On behalf of Respondent Nos.2 and 3, counter-affidavits have been filed.

6) Sri P. Subash, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 submits that due to the reason of pendency of the appeal before the RDO concerned and the Revision before Joint Collector, which are filed by third parties, delay has occurred in implementing the order of the Court. The Revision was disposed of in the month of April, 2021 and thereafter, immediately the Respondents took steps to issue pattadar passbooks in favour of the petitioners. The learned counsel submits that in the month of December, 2021, the pattadar passbooks are handed over to the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners accepted the same.

7) Having heard the submissions of the respective counsels and upon perusal of the material available on record, it is clear that the Respondents failed to implement the order of the Court within the time stipulated in order, dated 13.09.2017. The reason stated by the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 for the delay caused is also not acceptable to this Court because there is no any prohibitory order from any Court or authority prohibiting the Respondents to issue pattadar passbooks in favour of the petitioners in compliance of the order, dated 13.09.2017.

8) It is very strange to note that for issuance of pattadar passbooks from the revenue officers, the petitioners waited for four years, even after filing of contempt case before this Court. We are making it clear that it is the duty and responsibility of All India Service Officers, who has to protect the interest of the public to discharge their duties as per the constitution and to uphold the Majesty of the constitutional Courts.

9) When this Court asked the Officers (i.e.)

Respondent Nos.2 and 3 appeared before this Court in virtual mode with regard to delay, they submitted the reasons for the delay in implementing the order and extended their unconditional apology for the delay caused in implementing the order of the Court.

10) Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and upon considering the unconditional apology tendered by the Respondent Nos.2 and 3, this Court intends to take lenient view, as already order of the Court is implemented.

11) Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed with a warning to the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 to be careful in future in dealing with the implementation of the orders of the Courts in proper way.

There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

______________________________ JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND Date: 24.01.2022 PGR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND C.C.No.2836 of 2017 Dt.24-01-2022 PGR