APHC010573942024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3332]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

MONDAY ,THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CONTEMPT CASE NO: 4754/2024 Between:

Bodhanapu Ramachandra Rao @ Ramchandra, ...PETITIONER AND Sri N Venkateswara Rao ...CONTEMNOR Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. K K DURGA PRASAD Counsel for the Contemnor:

1.

The Court made the following:

ORDER This Contempt Case is filed by respondent no.5 in the writ petition vide W.P.No.193 of 2024 alleging disobedience of the orders passed by this Court by respondent-Tahsildar, Akividu Mandal, who was arraigned as respondent no.4 in the writ petition.

2. Heard Sri K.K.Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

4. The contents of the Contempt Case and material placed on record would indicate that the petitioner was arraigned as respondent no.5 in the writ petition vide W.P.No.193 of 2024 filed by five petitioners seeking writ of mandamus declaring the action of official respondents in attempting to issue E-pattadar pass Book by mutating the name of respondent no.5 therein/ petitioner herein in the revenue records. Based on the written instructions dated 05.01.2024 placed on record by official respondents to the effect that unofficial respondents had never filed any application for mutation, this Court, disposed of the said writ petition. By the said order, the official respondents are directed to dispose of the application if any made for mutation of names with regard to schedule properties by following the procedure contemplated under A.P.Rights in land and Pattadar Passbooks Act,1971 (for short, ‘A.P.RoR Act’).

5. The writ petition was filed on the apprehension that the authorities are going to consider the applications filed by petitioner herein and another for mutation of their names and for issuance of E-pattadar passbooks in respect of the subject property. The said writ petition was disposed of directing the authorities to dispose of the application, if any, in accordance with A.P.RoR Act, 1971, based on the written instructions and also the submissions made by learned counsel that the unofficial respondents therein had never filed any application as alleged by the petitioners therein.

6. The petitioner contends that as per Rule-21 of the Writ Rules, 1977, unless otherwise directs, the order issued by the Court shall be implemented within two months from the date of receipt of the order. Therefore, the order granted by this Court while disposing of the above writ petition has to be implemented within the time stipulated under Rule-21 of the Writ Rules. However, the respondent-Tahsildar, who are arraigned as respondent no.4 in the writ petition, instead of issuing notices on 25.07.2024 and 20.08.2024, pursuant to the application submitted by the petitioner, did not pass any orders, even after lapse of four (04) months and thus there is deliberate disobedience of the orders of this Court passed in the writ petition vide W.P.No.193 of 2024.

7. The petitioner not being one of the writ petitioners in W.P.No.193 of

2024, cannot maintain this Contempt Case alleging disobedience of the orders passed in the said writ petition. The cause of action stated to have accrued on the petitioner is independent to that of the cause of action accrued on the writ petitioners in W.P.No.193 of 2024. If at all the petitioner feels aggrieved by the action of the authorities in not disposing his application, he can question their inaction by filing a separate writ petition seeking redressal of his grievance, but he cannot maintain this contempt case alleging disobedience of the orders passed in the writ petition filed against him.

Therefore, the reliance placed on Rule-21 of Writ Rules is misplaced. 8. In view of the above, this Contempt Case is liable to be dismissed.

9. Accordingl