Compliance with the procedural directions of a court, such as conducting a hearing and passing a reasoned order, precludes a finding of contempt, regardless of whether the outcome is unfavorable to the petitioner.

ORDER

This Contempt Case is filed alleging non-compliance of the order dated 10.04.2025 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 33089 of 2024.

2. This Court, by order dated 10.04.2025, disposed of W.P.No.33089 of 2024, which reads as follows:

“6. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned Proceedings No.D/2180/2023 dated 21.07.2023 issued by the respondent No.2 is set aside. The respondent No.2 is directed to re-examine the petitioner’s application in accordance with the provisions of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 2020 or the Telangana Bhu Bharati (Record of Rights in Land) Act, 2025, as the case may be, by issuing notice to the petitioner as well as any other interested persons claiming rights over the subject lands and after providing an opportunity of personal hearing and duly taking into consideration the revenue records and documents relied upon by the parties, rectify the entries in the revenue records and issue pattadar passbooks to the petitioner, in accordance with law. If the petitioner is found ineligible, the respondent No.2 shall pass a reasoned order and communicate the same to the petitioner. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that instead of complying with the directions issued by this Court on 10.04.2025, the respondent has issued fresh proceedings vide Case No. D/2180/2023 dated 17.02.2026, once again rejecting the case of the petitioner. It is contended that despite the specific direction to rectify the entries based on the registered sale deed, the respondent has arbitrarily rejected the application on the same grounds. It is further contended that such conduct amounts to deliberate and willful disobedience of the orders of this Court.

4. A copy of the proceedings in Case No. D/2180/2023 dated 17.02.2026 issued by the Collector & District Magistrate, Narayanpet, has been placed on record. The relevant portions of the said order are extracted hereunder:

“ It is observed that a registered document bearing No.4354/2020 has been executed by one Smt. Manikyamma W/o. Sourappa @ Saibanna, purportedly representing the original pattadar. The attendant circumstances, prima facie, give rise to serious suspicion of impersonation, inasmuch as the original recorded pattadar had purchased the date of execution of the said instrument. Furthermore, it is evident from the field enquiry that neither the petitioner nor the alleged vendor has been in actual physical possession and enjoyment of the subject land.

It is a well-settled principle of law that revenue authorities, while exercising limited statutory jurisdiction, are not empowered to adjudicate complex and disputed questions pertaining to title, the validity of registered instruments, or allegations of fraud and impersonation. Such matters fall squarely within the exclusive domain of a competent Civil Court. The relief sought under Application No.2300004466 for passbook data correction necessarily entails an adjudication upon the legality and validity of the aforementioned registered document, which is beyond the purview of this authority.

In view of the foregoing facts and circumstances, the application is held to be not maintainable and is accordingly rejected. The petitioner is at liberty to seek appropriate remedy before a competent Civil Court by instituting a suit for declaration under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

Accordingly, the case stands dismissed.”

5. On a perusal of the record, it is clear that the respondent, in compliance of the orders of this Court, conducted re-examination of the petitioner's application, issued notices to all interested parties and after affording an opportunity of hearing, passed the order dated 17.02.2026. Having thus complied with the procedural mandates regarding the conduct of an inquiry and passed an order, it