Kanakam Ramakrishna v. Vasam Venkateshwarlu, Revenue Divisional officer, Khammam Revenue Division, Wyra Road, Khammam & Anr.

This Contempt Case is filed alleging willful disobedience 4-10-2010 W.P.No.16387/2010. This Court, by the above mentioned order directed respondent No.2 to consider the petitioner’s representation for grant of Section 38-E certificate under the A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 and dispose of the same within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Alleging that the said order has not been complied with, the present Contempt Case is filed by the writ petitioner. Respondent No.2 filed a counter-affidavit wherein it is inter alia stated that as he has not received copy of the order dated 4-10-2010 passed in the Writ Petition, he could not dispose of the petitioner’s representation; that after receiving notice in the Contempt Case, he has issued notices to the petitioner and the Executive Officer of Sri Malleswara Swamy Temple, Trunk Road, Khammam on 19- 12-2011 to attend his office on 24-12-2011 along with documentary evidence; that accordingly the petitioner was present and has produced photocopies of the certificate issued under Sections 35 and 37 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 along with other documents and that having considered the said documents, he has passed order in Rc.No.B/6611/2011, dated 24-12- 2011 and communicated the same to the petitioner on 27- 12-2011.

At the hearing, Sri K. Jagadishwar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, has not disputed the fact that respondent No.2 has passed the final order on 27-12-2011 on the petitioner’s representation. He however submitted that before passing the said order, no opportunity was given to his client. Inasmuch as the scope of this Contempt Case is limited to the inquiry as to whether the respondent willfully violated the order of this Court or not, the legality or otherwise of the order passed in pursuance of the direction of this Court cannot be adjudicated in this Contempt Case. If the petitioner feels aggrieved by the said order, he shall be free to avail appropriate remedy in accordance with law. Since the respondent has complied with the order of this Court, although belatedly, for which sufficient reasons have been assigned, I am not inclined to proceed with the Contempt Case further. Subject to the above observations, the Contempt Case is dismissed. ________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 9-2-2012 AM