HARI PRASAD Vs. THIRUPATHI SAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner filed this contempt case under the provisions of Ss. 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short 'the Act') complaining that the respondent-contemnor has not complied with the order passed by this Court on 13/3/2019 in W.P.No.3285 of 2019, whereunder and whereby this Court directed the Tahsildar - 4th respondent therein to consider the online application if any submitted by the petitioner for mutation and for issuance of pattadar passbooks and title deeds and dispose of the same, if not already disposed of, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order.

(2.) The allegation of the petitioner is that in spite of submitting representation for implementation of the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.3285 of 2019 along with other documents, the 4th respondent refused to issue acknowledgement. Subsequently, his counsel issued contempt notice dtd. 11/9/2019 calling upon the respondent to implement the orders of this Court and the same was served on 16/9/2019 and in spite of the same, the respondent did not take any steps on his online application and the respondent wilfully and deliberately violated the orders of this Court and thereby liable for punishment.

(3.) The respondent filed his counter stating that he has verified the revenue records of Munagalapadu Village of Kurnool Mandal. The petitioner requested for issue E-Pattadar passbooks and title deeds and mutate his name in the revenue records, but the land extent Ac.6.00 situated in Sy.No.225 belongs to Jilekhan Mosque Waqf property and the land extent Ac.18.57 cents situated in Sy.No.225 is mentioned in Annexure-III of Munagalapadu Village under prohibited property list. Hence, the request of the petitioner is not considered. The endorsement issued to the petitioner vide respondent's office Rc.B.661/2019 dtd. 13/8/2019 was received by the petitioner's advocate by name Sri Ravi Kumar on 13/8/2019 and the endorsement was also sent to the petitioner by registered post on 28/10/2019. The petitioner filed the contempt case wilfully and purposefully suppressing the said fact. His predecessor could not take immediate action as per the orders of this Court, due to attending the duties of General Elections 2019 during the crucial period could not comply with the orders passed by this Court on 13/3/2019. The allegation of the petitioner is false and incorrect and prays to close the contempt case.