The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Contempt Case No.13 of 2014 Between:
Shaik Rahamtulla
Dated 21.04.2014
…Petitioner And 1.SHM.Samuel, IAS, Prl.Secretary, Revenue Department, Govt. of A.P., Secretariat, Hyderabad and another.
…Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.G.Madhusudhan Reddy Counsel for the respondents: GP for Revenue The Court made the following:
Order:
This Contempt Case is filed alleging willful disobedience of Order, dated 25-09-2013, in WP.No.27850 of 2013, by the respondent- District Collector, Adilabad.
In this Contempt Case, the petitioner has alleged that the respondent has deliberately violated the order of this Court by not following the procedure directed to be followed in the said order. On 19-02- 2014, this Court has admitted the Contempt Case and directed personal presence of the respondent. Accordingly, the respondent was present on 25-03- 2014. While prima facie finding that the respondent has not held proper enquiry before rejecting the petitioner’s application for grant of No Objection Certificate (NOC), this Court has permitted the respondent to hold an enquiry and pass a fresh order.
Today, at the hearing, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue representing the respondents placed before the Court proceeding No.C2/5111/2012, dated 19-04-2014, of the District Collector, Adilabad, whereby he has rejected the petitioner’s application for NOC. A perusal of the said proceeding would show that the respondent has issued notices to all the parties concerned including the petitioner as directed by this Court and for the reasons recorded therein, he has rejected the grant of NOC to the petitioner.
Mr.G.Madhusudhan Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, stated that having regard to the registered sale deed executed by Thogari Mallesh, S/o. Thogari Ramulu, in favour of the petitioner, the reasoning of the District Collector based on the statement of Thogari Mallesh that the documents were fabricated cannot be sustained. He has further argued that the respondent has gone far beyond his jurisdiction in directing the Tahsildar, Kasipet, to resume the land.
Though the approach of the respondent shows that he has gone far beyond the scope of enquiry and directed resumption of the land, as this aspect does not fall within the scope of the present Contempt Case, this Court refrains from expressing any opinion on the same. If the petitioner feels aggrieved by the said order, he shall be free to question it by availing appropriate remedy.
As regards the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the respondent has not made proper application of mind in rejecting the petitioner’s application for grant of NOC, it will not be appropriate for this Court to delve into the correctness or otherwise of the reasoning of the respondent. The issue raised in the present Contempt Case is limited to examining whether the respondent has held an enquiry and considered the material adduced by the petitioner for grant of NOC before taking a decision. From the above noted proceeding, it appears that the respondent has followed this procedure as directed by this Court. If the respondent has unjustly and illegally rejected issuance of NOC to the petitioner, he shall be free to question this order by availing appropriate remedy.
The Contempt Case is, accordingly, closed with liberty to the petitioner to question the order of the respondent referred to above by initiating appropriate proceedings.
(C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 21st April, 2014
LUR