IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CONTEMPT CASE No.1485 of 2014 BETWEEN Rachukacula Durgamma AND Kishan.
... PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This contempt case arises out of order of this court in W.P.No.8613 of 2014 dated 04.04.2014. The said writ petition was filed by the petitioner alleging that to the extent of Ac.10-02 guntas of land in Survey No.860/A of Kodakandla Village and Mandal, Warangal District, he had approached the Tahsildar seeking rectification of sur name of the petitioner in the revenue records and alleging inaction on the said representation of the petitioner, the said writ petition was filed. By order of this court, dated 04.04.2014, the writ petition was disposed of directing the second respondent to consider the petitioner’s aforesaid request in the light of the directions of the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) and pass appropriate orders expeditiously within three months. The present contempt case is filed alleging non-compliance of the said order.
2. Notice before admission was ordered in the contempt case. Learned Government Pleader, on instructions from the respondent Tahsidlar, states that following the directions of the RDO vide his order, dated 21.07.2010, the Tahsildar has already issued orders, dated 09.06.2014 in proceedings No.B/443/14 by rectifying the surname, as sought for by the petitioner. It is further stated that as the petitioner is not residing in the said village, the proceedings could not be communicated to her.
3. Since the order of this court is complied with by the Tahsildar, the contempt case does not deserve to be entertained any further.
Accordingly, the contempt case is dismissed. Petitioner is at liberty to approach the Tahsildar, who shall furnish a copy of the said proceeding to her on payment of usual charges. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J October 20, 2014 LMV