Sane Ramakrishna Reddy, Ananthapur Dist. v. A. Venkatesh, Ananthapur Dist. And 2 Others

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY Contempt Case No.1690 of 2017 ORDER :

This Contempt Case is filed alleging violation of order passed by this Court in W.P.No.18476 of 2016 on 15.06.2016. This Court disposed of the aforesaid writ petition as follows:

"It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the lis in the writ petition is squarely covered by the order dated 03.03.2016, passed by this Court in WP.No.6690 of 2016 and the same is not disputed by the learned Government Pleader for Revenue.

Recording the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider the representations dated 17.12.2011 and 15.05.2012 submitted by the petitioner in terms of order dated 03.03.2016 in WP.No.6690/2016, within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order after issuing notice to the petitioner and other affected parties and communicate his decision thereon to the petitioner. No order as to costs."

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though this Court passed order to consider the representation of the petitioner, no survey was conducted by the respondents. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for revenue appearing for respondents submits that notice was issued to the petitioner and after conducting of survey only, endorsement dated 13.07.2016 was issued to the petitioner and that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the said

endorsement, he can challenge the same before appropriate forum.

Though the learned counsel for the petitioner tried to contend that the impugned endorsement is illegal, but this Court cannot go into the validity or otherwise of the endorsement issued by the 1st respondent in this Contempt Case, since this Court has directed the respondents to consider the representations of the petitioners dated 17.12.2011 and 15.05.2012. Moreover, no reply is filed by the petitioner denying the endorsement issued by the 1st respondent.

In view of same, I do not see any violation of orders passed by this Court, as such, the Contempt Case is liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. However, it is open for the petitioner to challenge the impugned endorsement dated 13.07.2016 issued by the 1st respondent, if he is so advised.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Contempt Case shall stand closed. _________________________ A.RAJASHEKER REDDY, J 22-02-2018 kvs

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY Contempt Case No.1690 OF 2017 Date: 22.02.2018 kvs