HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY C.C.No.1213 of 2014 Date : 20-9-2014 Between :
S.T.S. Raghavendra Chary ..
Petitioners and another and B. Chandra Rao, Tahsildar, Farooqnagar Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District ..
Respondent Counsel for petitioners : Sri M. Vidyasagar Counsel for respondent : --
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This Contempt Case is filed alleging wilful default of order dated 11-12-2013 in W.P.No.36231 of 2013.
By the above mentioned order, this Court has disposed of the Writ Petition on the representation made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Telangana Area) that if survey was not completed, the respondent will complete the same. This Court directed the respondent to furnish a copy of the survey report within one month from the date of receipt of the order. Alleging that the said order has not been complied with, the petitioners filed this Contempt Case.
The respondent has filed a counter-affidavit wherein he has inter alia stated that he has taken over the office as Tahsildar, Farooqnagar Mandal, on 13-6-2014; that he has issued notice dated 13-8-2014 fixing 27-8-2014 for survey; that on 27-8-2014 he along with the Mandal Surveyor, the Mandal Revenue Inspector and the Village Revenue Officer, Mogiligadda visited the spot and tried to demarcate the subject lands; that at that juncture, Sri L. Krishnavardhan Reddy, the General Power of Attorney of Smt. L. Vijaya Lakshmi, the legal representative of one of the declarants, filed an objection petition against the survey of the subject lands by stating that order dated 3-5-2008 passed by the Land Reforms Tribunal and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubnagar are set-aside by the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal in L.R.A.No.2 of 2008 by order dated 29- 6-2009; that the matter has been remanded for redetermination and the same is pending on the file of the Revenue Divisional Officer/Land Reforms Tribunal, Mahaboobnagar; and that therefore demarcation of the land was postponed to be conducted after passing orders by the Land Reforms Tribunal.
Sri M. Vidyasagar, learned Counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the respondent has wilfully failed to carry out the direction of this Court.
In my opinion, the reason put forth by the respondent that a third party objected to the survey and demarcation of the lands on account of purported pendency of land reforms proceedings appears to be acceptable. The very fact that the respondent tried to survey and demarcate the land by going to the land itself shows that effort was made by him to comply with the order of this Court. If a third party claiming the land has raised objections, the respondent cannot be blamed for postponing the survey. The appropriate remedy available for the petitioners is to initiate action against the third party who is raising objection to the survey and secure an order from the competent court of law to enable the respondent to conduct survey and demarcation.
Subject to the liberty given to the petitioners as above, the Contempt Case is dismissed.
Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 20-9-2014 AM