APHC010359802023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V. SUJATHA CONTEMPT CASE No.4155 of 2023 Between: M. Chidambaram ...PETITIONER AND V Gangaiah and another ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. L. J. VEERA REDDY Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 1. T. BALASWAMI The Court made the following: 2 VS,J C.C.No.4155 of 2023 ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record. 2. This contempt case is filed complaining willful disobedience on the part of the respondents in complying with the order dated 23.11.2022 passed by this Court in W.P.No.21646 of 2015. 3. Operative portion of the aforesaid order reads as under: “Keeping in view the submissions made by both the parties, this court feels it appropriate to allow the writ petition by setting aside the endorsement given by the 3rd respondent and thereafter, the petitioner is directed to make F-Line application in this regard within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and if such F-Line application is filed, the respondents are directed to dispose of the same within a period of four (4) weeks thereafter.” 4. The present contempt case is filed by the petitioner alleging that, pursuant to the above order, he made an F-Line application to respondent No.1 within the time stipulated, but respondent No.1, vide proceedings No.A/65/2023 dated 05.03.2023, rejected the same on the ground that the Surveyor reported that he is unable to measure the land as no sub-division took place in respect of Sy.No.993 and that the petitioner is not possession of the land claimed and further, there is a structure existing in the said land with tin sheets. The petitioner contends that the said grounds are incorrect and untenable and as such, he has issued a legal notice dated 06.04.2023, followed by a 3 VS,J C.C.No.4155 of 2023 contempt notice dated 19.06.2023, to respondent No.1, enclosing all relevant documents and requesting to measure the land and fix boundaries, but however, no action has been taken by the respondents and, hence, there is willful violation of the order of this Court. 5. Respondent No.1 filed a counter-affidavit, stating that pursuant to the order of this Court, the petitioner has submitted an F-Line application on 21.01.2023 at the office of the Tahsildar, upon which notices dated 04.02.2023 were issued to the petitioner and all adjacent pattadars to attend the survey scheduled on 08.02.2023 and, accordingly, they were present at the site on the said date. However, during the survey, the petitioner was not able to show the boundaries of the land claimed by him and it was also observed that the petitioner was not in possession of the land claimed. After completion of the proceedings, the Mandal Surveyor, Porumamilla, has submitted a report dated 20.02.2023, stating that the land in Sy.No.993/4 is covered with buildings and zinc sheet sheds and since the land had not been sub-divided and the petitioner is not in possession of the land claimed by him, the boundaries could not be fixed, as per BSO 34-A Para 20(a). Based on the said report, the then Tahsildar, Porumamilla Mandal, has issued the proceedings in RC.No.A/65/2023 dated 05.03.2023, duly mentioning the above facts and directed the petitioner to approach the civil court as the land is classified as patta 4 VS,J C.C.No.4155 of 2023 land. A copy of the said proceedings dated 05.03.2023 was duly served on the petitioner. It is, therefore, prayed to close the contempt case. 6. Rebutting the same, the petitioner filed a reply-affidavit, contending that the reasons provided by the respondents for not fixing the boundaries are incorrect and unsustainable. It is further asserted that though the petitioner physically identified the land on the date of survey and is in actual possession of the land, the respondents have made contradictory statements only to avoid demarcation of boundaries. 7. Having gone through the pleadings and the material available on record, it is evident that after submission of F-Line application by the petitioner, the respondents have acted upon the same, by fixing a date for conducting the survey and issuing prior notices to the petitioner and adjacent pattadars to attend the survey. However, as it emerged during the survey proceedings that the land was not sub-divided and was not in the possession of the petitioner, the boundaries could not be fixed and the same was intimated to the petitioner vide proceedings dated 05.03.2023. Thus, it is clear that the respondents have disposed of the petitioner’s F-Line application and thereby, complied with the order of this Court. Though the petitioner contends that the reasons mentioned in the said proceedings dated 05.03.2023 for not fixing the boundaries 5 VS,J C.C.No.4155 of 2023 are not tenable, the said issue cannot be gone into or adjudicated in the present contempt case and the petitioner would have to take recourse to appropriate remedy to challenge the said proceedings, if so advised. 8. Accordingly, this contempt case is closed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to challenge the proceedings in RC.No.A/65/2023 dated 05.03.2023 issued by the Tahsildar, Porumamilla Mandal, in accordance with law. Interlocutory applications, if any, pending shall stand closed. No order as to costs. ___________________ JUSTICE V. SUJATHA Date: 21.03.2025 IBL 6 VS,J C.C.No.4155 of 2023 THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V. SUJATHA CONTEMPT CASE No.4155 of 2023 Dt: 21.03.2025 IBL