THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY CONTEMPT CASE No.950 of 2014 Dated: 19.12.2014 Between:
Mohammed Younus .. Petitioner and Shri B. Sreedhar, IAS, The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, and others.
.. Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr. Mohammed Younus Party-in-person Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Revenue (TS) The court made the following:
ORDER:
This contempt case is filed alleging wilful disobedience of order dated 20.08.2013 in W.P.No.17034 of 2013.
The petitioner has filed the above-mentioned writ petition for a Mandamus to set aside memo in Lr.No.ES/6502/2009 dated 10.02.2010 of respondent No.1, whereby he has rejected the application of the petitioner for regularization of his possession of land in Sy.No.136. By order dated 20.08.2013, this Court has allowed the said writ petition with a direction to the State Government to give notice and an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and dispose of his application within three months from the date of receipt of the order. Alleging wilful disobedience of the said order, the petitioner filed this contempt case.
At the hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (T.S.) placed before the Court order dated 30.12.2013 in P.I.L.M.P.No.795 of 2013 in P.I.L.No.517 of 2013, which reads as under:
“No further steps shall be taken in the matter.
Let counter affidavit be filed by the Government within fortnight after reopening of Courts after Pongal Vacation, 2014. The names and addresses of the beneficiaries of the land in question shall be mentioned in the said counter affidavit so that the Court may take appropriate measures against them.”
The petitioner, who is appearing as party-in-person, submitted that the above-mentioned order of the Division Bench shall be deemed to be confined to only new applications and not pending applications.
I am afraid, I cannot accept this submission of the petitioner. The prayer in P.I.L.M.P.No.795 of 2013, in which the above-mentioned order has been passed, reads as under:
“Petition under Section 151 of C.P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in the PIL, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to restrain from taking any final decision in respect of the pending new applications under G.O.Ms.No.166, pending disposal of PIL No.517 of 2013 on the file of the High Court.”
From the reading of the above extracted prayer, it is evident that the prayer in P.I.L.M.P.No.795 of 2013 has used both the phrases, namely; pending and new applications, though the word “and” is not used between the two phrases. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the interim order of the Division Bench applies to both pending and new applications. As the petitioner’s application is a pending application, the order of the Division Bench squarely applies to his case also. In view of the same, as the respondents are restrained by the Division Bench order from considering the petitioner’s application, it cannot be said that they are guilty of wilful disobedience of the order of this Court.
For the above-mentioned reasons, the contempt case is dismissed, however, with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh contempt case in the event the respondents do not comply with the order of this Court, subject to the result of P.I.L.M.P.No.795 of 2013 in P.I.L.No.517 of 2013.
As a sequel to the dismissal of the contempt case, Application No.972 of 2014 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 19th December, 2014 IBL