THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

ORDER:

Heard Sri Vijay Kumar Panuganti, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents.

2. This Contempt Case is filed alleging willful and deliberate violation of order dated 06.08.2024 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.21407 of 2024.

3. Vide the aforesaid order, this Court while setting aside the order dated 27.05.2024 passed by 2^nd respondent herein remanded the matter back to 2^nd respondent with a direction to consider the online application dated 31.05.2023 submitted by the petitioner seeking succession and pass appropriate orders afresh in accordance with law, by putting the petitioner on notice and affording him an opportunity and communicate a copy of the said order to the petitioner, within four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order.

4. 1^st respondent, District Collector, has filed a counter affidavit contending that vide order dated 06.12.2024, he has rejected the aforesaid application filed by the petitioner, and ordered the Revenue Divisional Officer, Bhainsa, to dispose of the petitioner’s application in Dharani Portal as per CCLA online module. 2^nd respondent has also filed counter affidavit in the same lines.

5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue has filed a Memo vide USR No.58338, dated 20.06.2025 enclosing copies of Circular Nos.1 & 2 of 2024 dated 28.02.2024 and 26.11.2024 respectively. As per Circular No.1, District Collector is the competent authority to consider the online application submitted under TM4 module. As per 2^nd Circular, Revenue Divisional Officer is the competent authority to dispose of the pending applications in Dharani portal. Therefore, in the present case, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Bhainsa, has passed order, dated 20.03.2025 rejecting the petitioner’s online application filed for succession under TM4 module.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that in the orders of the District Collector and the Revenue Divisional Officer, there is no consideration of recommendation of

2^nd respondent. Therefore, both the said orders are illegal.

7. In contempt proceedings, this Court cannot consider the aforesaid aspects. Therefore, the petitioner has to challenge the said orders of the District Collector and the Revenue Divisional Officer in appropriate proceedings. However, to punish the contemnors in terms of Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, there should be willful and deliberate violation of the order of this Court.

8. In the present case, there is no willful and deliberate violation of the order under contempt by the respondents.

9. As discussed supra, there is some confusion with regard to the powers of the District Collector, Revenue Divisional Officer and Tahsildar, to dispose of the applications filed under TM4 module. Therefore, the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration has issued aforesaid Circular Nos.1 & 2 of 2024 dated 28.02.2024 and 26.11.2024 respectively. As per 2^nd circular, it is the Revenue Divisional Officer, who is the competent authority to consider the online application submitted by the applicant under TM4 module seeking succession.

10. Following the aforesaid Circular No.2, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Bhainsa, has passed the said order dated

20.03.2025.

11. In the light of the said discussion, this Contempt Case is closed granting liberty to the petitioner to challenge the aforesaid order.

_________________

K. LAKSHMAN, J

11^th JULY, 2025.

krk/kvni