APHC010791342018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CONTEMPT CASE NO: 2831/2018 Between: Sri Hampi Virupaksha Vidhyaranya Maha Samasthanam, ...PETITIONER AND Sri Hussain Sab ...CONTEMNOR Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. JAGAN MOHAN RAO MANNAVA Counsel for the Contemnor: 1. G L NAGESWAR RAO The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CONTEMPT CASE NO:2831/2018 ORDER: This contempt case is filed against the respondents for willful disobedience of the orders dated 18.04.2018 passed by this Court in W.P.No.10322 of 2018. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner(s) and learned counsel for the respondents. 3. The order dated 18.04.2018 passed by this Court in W.P.No.10322 of 2018 is extracted hereunder: “The Court is also of the opinion that unless survey is conducted and demarcation is done, question of handing over land to petitioner does not arise. Since petitioner has already submitted application for conducting survey, the Tahsildar, Ananatapur Mandal and District, the 3rd respondent, shall consider the application submitted by the petitioner and furnish suitable reply to it as to whether survey is to be conducted and in the event, the Tahsildar comes to a conclusion that a survey can be conducted, he shall take appropriate steps for conducting survey by putting on notice to all the persons concerned who are likely to be affected. The entire exercise shall be completed within three (03) months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.” 4. On perusal of the said order, it is evident that the Tahsildar concerned is directed to consider the application of the petitioner for conducting survey if the Tahsildar comes to a conclusion that the survey can be conducted as requested by the petitioner and further directed to take necessary steps for conducting survey. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even though there is a specific direction to the respondents herein to conduct survey since the Tahsildar came to a conclusion that survey can be conducted but the same was not completed. As such, the respondents are found guilty in violation of the orders of this Court under Sections 10 and 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents filed counter affidavit, wherein, he categorically stated as follows: “In this regard, it is submitted that in obedience to the above said orders of this Hon'ble court, this respondent issued a U.O.Note dt.15.7.2018 to the Surveyor directing him to measure the land in Sy.No.106/1 to an extent of Ac.4.48 cents by issuing notices to the concerned. As per the instructions of this respondent, the Surveyor visited the location along with the revenue staff and found that there are nearly 200 houses in the said survey number and when he attempted to conduct survey, some of the inmates of the houses in the said survey number objected for survey and on informing, this respondent directed the Surveyor to gather the details of the persons who are objecting for survey and when the Surveyor visited the location to gather their details, they have not cooperated with the Surveyor and the Surveyor informed the same to this respondent through letter dt.18.7.2018. In the meanwhile, the District Collector, Ananthapuramu issued proceedings dt.30.09.2018 suspending this respondent from service due to administrative reasons and after revoking the suspension, posted as Tahsildar at Pamidi Mandal. Though this respondent initiated steps to implement the orders of this Hon'ble court, due to the suspension, could not comply with the orders of this Hon'ble court. It is most humbly submitted that I am under bonafide impression that my successor might have completed the remaining process. There is no willful nor deliberate violation of the orders of this Hon'ble court by this respondent. The delay in complying with the orders of this Hon' ble court is neither wilful nor wanton but due to the above said reasons. I hereby tender my unconditional apology to this Hon'ble court for the delay in complying with the orders of this Hon'ble court and the same may kindly be accepted and I may be exonerated from the Contempt Case. 7. On perusal of the contents of the counter affidavit, it is observed that the respondents took steps in respect of the subject property for conducting survey and accordingly issued proceedings dated 15.07.2018 to the surveryor concerned for conducting the survey as directed by this Court. But, the surveyor who was under obligation to conduct survey also submitted a fresh letter dated 18.07.2018 stating that the survey was not allowed by the respondents who were in possession of the subject property and expressed his inability for conducting such survey. 8. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents, on perusal of the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is observed that this Court specifically directed the respondents and granted liberty to the Tahsildar once he comes to a conclusion that survey can be conducted, he has to carry out the survey by issuing notice to the parties concerned. Accordingly, the respondents herein issued the impugned proceedings for conducting survey through the surveyor as contemplated under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Survey And Boundaries Act, 1923. But the surveyor expressed his inability to conduct the survey since the entire land was in occupation by the residents and they resisted to enter into the land for conducting survey. Therefore, the implementation of the orders of this Court even though the respondents tried to comply the orders of this Court but become un-executable. In view of the same, there is no willfull disobedience or guilt on part of the respondents. As such, no contempt case is made out by the petitioner herein. 9. Accordingly, the present contempt case is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the contempt case shall stand closed. ________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 25.02.2025 BSP 232 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA (closed) Contempt Case No.2831 of 2018 25.02.2025 BSP