CC/1654/2024 of Mekala Krishnaveni @ Sumangali Vs Mr. B.M. Santosh on 20 February 2026

ORDER:

Heard Mr. T.P.S' Harsha' learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. Tekuru Swetcha' learned Assistant Govemment Pleader for Revenue appeartng for the resPondents order

2. This Contempt Case is filed alteging willful and deliberate violation of order dated 12'06'2024 in W P' No'14669 of 2024'

3. Vide the aforesaid order' this Court passed the following "5. ln the light of the above discussion' aforesaid endorseurents dated 26 05'2023 and 19 01'2024 of respondcnl No 5 arc sct asidc and thc matter is remandecl back ttl respontlcnt No'5 rvith the follorving direotions:

Respondent No.5 shall re_consider the appcal filed -b)' thc petitioners vide N.,. A 01 ) o, i i obGr r r r.' " I ",.?' " I ;,,1i;i,; ",,;l condlrcting survey ollhe subject land; llt^;aye, if resnondenr Nos.4 and 5 are of rhc view tnat subdivision numbcrs is rcquired to bc done and.arrl lurther fee is rcquired i" n" ,.ij irin" lill,."r":,:^,, l"rms of . rhe circulars "r"i.r.;o,,o" .,,1,,r. rrc same shall be irrtimated to the 11:,]:i:.: and on receipr of suctr inr;mat;orr from responder)t Nos.4 and 5, the petirioner;;;il.;;; :y.n,,*".a_s may be required' by rh" ,esponali,t t'los.4 and 5: _?1, .r:h payment of fee by rhe peritioners. .rl,tlrorO"nt Nos.4 and 5 shall tai<e ,r"il;ri;;;i; lakrng up.tl)e srrrvey as requestcd U, ,f,r" p",iii *.rl and conclude the same in acco.darrc" ,"li,h ;r_; f[_:r] r: exercise. as directed ahuve. shall bc ::]:!,_.j,.q wilhin a period of i"nr -li_.-',,r5, i;[:i::,qlr, rrom the darc or reccipr ",:.;n,';i KL,J C.C. No 1654 of202J at I 1.00 A.M Iv .1. It is rhe specific contention of the petitioners herein that the respondcnts had not intjmated to them with regard to fi-rfther fee to be paid b1 thern for conducring survey of the subject land till tiling of rhe pl'eserlt contempt' However, respondent No.4 had issued notice dated 15.07.2024 ro conduct rhe survey on 23.07.2O24 Accordin-ul-v. respondent Nos.3,4 and others visited the subject land, but did not conduct the survey on the ground of alleged disturbances in the \/illage and thereby they have disobeyed the order under. contempt. I..ven the respondents did not communicate the reasons fbr not compl)/ing rvith the order under contempt. If survel. conducts.

KI-,J C C. No.l654 of2024 disturbarice may be caused in the village is not a ground for non- compliance of the order under contempt' Therefore' the respondents are liable to be punished for disobedience ofthe order under contempt'

5. Respondent No'3 filed counter denying the said allegations and contended that:

i. Pursuant to the order under contempt' respondent Nos'5 and 6 initiated process ot 15 '07 '2024 after issuing notices to the petitioners and surrounding neighbours fixing F-Line demarcation as 23 '0'7 '2024 and also informed the Sub-lnspector of Police, Ieeja Mandal and the Tahsildar' Ieeja Mandal' to start survey work in respect of the land in SurveY No.62, admeasuring Acs'16'13 guntas' situated at Bingi Doddi Village of Ieeja Mandal ' The petitioners requested to demarcate part of the land to an extentofAcs'3.l6guntas.But'tlrerequestmadebythe petitioners with regard to Survey No'62A3/A is not having any sub-division in the Vittage MaP' The petitioners are not ln possession of the said extent of tand in Survey No 62 as per Vitlage MaP.

KI-,J C C. No 1654 ot2o24 On 23.07.2024, the respondents along with Mandal Surveyor and Deputy hspector of Survey attended the field survey No.62 and neighbouring Survey Nos.6l. 54, 63 and ll2 and demarcation work stafted in the presence of the petitioners and concemed pattadars. Alier conducting survey of the land in Sy.No.62, major part of pattadars in Sun,ey No.62lpart i.e., If4r. Natti Venkat Ramulu tz\cs. L I.1 gunras), Mr. Uppari Chinna Ramudu (Acs.l. I4 guntas), Mr. Uppari Narsimulu (Acs.1.l 5 guntas), Mr.Uppari I{ari Krishna (Acs. l.l5 guntas) and others, objected and to stop tlre u,or-k subntitted a letter to respondent Nos.3 and 5 and did no[ co-opcril[e r,r.rth the survey. The same was also publishcd in 'l elugu Dail-r Nervspspgl (Andhra Jyothi) on 23.07.2024. '['he petitioners havc restricted the respondents to conduct dernarcation and obstructed the vehicles by Mr. Sridhar and pressed to contplete the survey work. But, in view of the alirresaid reasons, lhey stopped the survey work.

6. I{espondent No.3 filed additional counter apart fi.or}r the counter. alrcad;. filed Iv contending that: lt l.

As per report dated 24'07 '2024 of the Deputy Inspector of Survey, petitioner No't is not in possession of the land to an KI-,J C.C. No.l654 of2021 extent of Acs.3 ' l6 guntas' Even prior to the said report' the applicants' Golla Laxmanna' Golla Hanmanna, Chakali Jayanna' who are opposite pattadars submitted an aPPlication for demarcation of their land' As per 22.12.2020 and the Panchanama survey conducted conducted, the said applicants are doing agriculture' As per Circular dated 13'07'2007' the sub-division will be done lt. l. on subject to the actual possession on ground tallying with the documents mentioned'

7. The petitioners hled rejoinder to the counters filed by the respondents refuting the allegations made in the counter and additional counter'

8. As discussed above' the petitioners herein are claiming that petitioner No' 1 is the absolute owner of the land admeasuring Acs.3.16 guntas in Survey No'62A3/A' situated at Bingidoddi Viltage' Ieeja Mandal, Jogulamba - Gadwal District' which is hereinafter referred to as 'subject land'' ln the atfidavit fited by theur in suppo( of W.P. No'14669 of 2024'they have contended that lhe said property 1-.. ---

KL,J C.C No. t654 of2021 is their ancestral propcr-ty rvere in posscssion ol. the have flled pahanies. the farnilv rnerlbers The family members of petitioner No.2 land admeasuring Acs. 10.35 guntas in Surv*, No 62.{ ol Bingidoddi Village. In proof of the same, they Alter partition of the family properties amongst of petitioner No.2 in the year 1996 which was duly rcgistered by docurnenr No.4g7 of 1996,dated 09. 10. 1995, the Iand irr No.62.,\ adrncasuring Acs. 10.35 guntas of Bingidoddi Village fcil to thr' shar.c o[-pcritioner No.2. Upon such partition, petitioner No.? 3n6 lris lhrnily rncrrbers have been in peaceful possession and enjoy nrcnr ol-the saicl llropeftv. 9 TItc,r. har..e ft1r111g1 contended that petitioner No.2 transferred the suh icct l)rope 11\ r .e., Acs.3. I 6 guntas in Survey No.62A3lA, srruared ar ISingi<roddi viirage in the name of his wife i.e., petitioner No. I hcrein. .Accordin.qJr,. petitioner No.l,s name was mutated in revenue records and latest pattadar passbook was issued in her favour. In prool-of tltc sanre, they have filed copies of old and latest pattadar passbook alonq rvith tire u,rit petition. However, they have not pleaded as to sale ol balance land and the names of the purchasers in the said aIl idavir

KL,I C.C. No.l654 0f2024

10. It is apt to note that the petitioners have filed report dated 22.07.2021of Additional Girdavar of leeja Mandal submitted to the Tahsitdar of Ieeja Mandal' Perusal of the same would reveal that petitioner No.1 had submitted an application dated 05'07'2021 to the Tahsildar, with a request to mutate her name in respect ol the land admeasuring Acs'3'16 guntas in Survey No'62A3/A of Bingidoddi Village and issue e-pattadat Passbook' On receiPt of the said application, vide letterdated 07'07'2021' the Tahsitdar' teeja Mandal sought report from the Additional Girdavar of leeja Mandal Pursuant to the same, the Additional Girdavar submitted his repoft on 22.07.2021. In the said report' the Additional Girdavar stated that as pcr Khasra Pahani, the total extent in Suwey No 62 is Acs' 16 l3 guntas. But, in Dharani Pahani' it is mentioned as Acs' 16'26 guntas' Thus, there is excess of Ac'0'13 guntas recorded in Dharani' It is flurther stated that out of Acs'10'35 guntas of land' an extent of Ac.7.l9 guntas was sold and the balance land is Acs 3'16 guntas' petitioner No. r is not in physicar possession or the said land ol Acs.3.16 guntas' Mr' Natti Venkatramulu' Mr' Natti Chinna Ramultr' Mr. Nani Narasimhlu' Mr' Natti Harikrishna' all sons ol Natti Buddanna, purchased the land admeasuring Acs'5'18 guntas in Survey

...,[1*oorroro No.62AA fronr Mr. Vittal Rao S/o Sanjeeva Rao under registered documenr bear.ing Nos.6l96 of 2007, 6t97 of 2007, 619g of 2007 and, 6199 of 2001 . Our of rhe said exrent of Acs.5. 1g guntas belongs to the aforesaid persons and the land of Acs.3.l6 guntas belongs to petitioner No.l , an extenr of.A.c. l. i0 guntas of land was acquired for the purpose of laying R&B ltoad. Balance land is in possession of the aforesaid persons and peritiorer. No. I. Therefore, the Additional Girdavari recomrnended lb. re'icctio' or the apprication submitted by petitioner No.l. I l. Relbrring ro rhc repoft dated 04.04.2022 of theTahsildar, Ieeja Mandal, Iler errue I)ivisionai Olficer (RDO), Gadwal senr a repoft dared 06.04.1011 to lhc Distr.ict Collcctor, Jogulamba _ Gadwal District. In the sricl r.cporl also, it is mentioned that petitioner No.l is having toral exrenr ol.Acs. I0.35 guntas in Survey No.621431,4. out of which, petitioner No. i has soid out to an extent of Acs.7.l9 guntas and for. relnarning cxtcnt ol Acs.3.l6 guntas, D.S. to be done. As per RSR, the roral extenr in Survey No.62 is Acs. 16. 13 guntas. Now, in Dharani, an extent of Acs. 16.26 gutnas is shown in Survey No.62. RSR variation is Ac.(t.l3 guntas excess. Iixcess extent has been identified and erlrered in E.rcess Register. In Survey No.62, 100 feet

KI.-.J C.C No.1654 of2024 R&B Road was formed in an extent of around Acs'l'l0 guntas' The road extent would be cut off among the farmers whose land was acquired for R&B as and when correction option is provided in Dharani Portal. With the said report, the RDo recommended lor acceptance of the application submitted by petitioner No' t '

12. It is also apt to note that latest/e-pattadar passbook was issued in lavour of petitioner No'1 to an extent of Acs'3' 16 guntas in Survey No.62A3lA of the Bingidoddi Village on 09'04'2022' It is also apt to note that the petitioners have filed copies of latest patadar passbook and old pattadar passbook' In the old pattadar passbook' an extent of Ac.10'35 guntas in SurveyNo'62/A of Bingidoddi Vitlage is

13. Vide endorsement dated 26'05'2023' respondent No'i herein has stated that on receipt of the application submitted by petitioner No' I seeking survey' notices were issued on I 3 '05 '2023 to all the interested parties including the petitioners herein' Petitioner No.2 atong with owners of the adjacent land and Vitlagers attended the said survey' Respondent No'3 and his staff tried to conduct survey with the help of Village Map and Tippon in respect of Sunuey No 62' Mr. N. Narsimulu, Mr' rnentioned. Harikrishna, Mrs' JaYalaxnrt' Mr. Pedda

l0 .. ^.flJ,oo,or. Mr.Golla Maddileti and Mrs. U. Parvathamma, farmers s[rbmitted objections to respondent No.3 requesting hirn not to conduct survey saying that the petitioners are not in physical possession of the subject land. Though petitioner No.2 is having revenue pattadar passbook, they are not in physical possession ol- the subject property. Therefore, there are serious disputes betu,een lhe pctirioner.s and the aloresaid persons. Thus, demarcation o. the sub-icct la'd and parl denlarcation is not possible. He lras also placcd rcliancc on Circular No.N2/1741/2010 and Nl/1408/2007, and ar:cor.di,gl1.. hc has requesred the petitioners to approach the ('iril (lourr chalre,ging the said endorsement, dated 26.05.2023, thc petitroncrs liled an appeal on demarcation on 23.11.2023 vide Application No.AOD022300058333. The same was dismissed by respondent No. j yile proceedings dated 19.01.2024. I4 rn thc proceedings dated 19.01.2024, respondent No.3 has reiterated the afbr.esaiii lbcts and inlormed the petitioners that conducting of sun,ey is not possible.

15. TLte pcririoners filcd thc afor.esaid writ petition No.14669 of 2024, to declare the action ol thc respondents in not conducting the survey under F-l'ine Application submitted by the petitioner dated Ramudu, Mr. pala Bazari, lg.Ol.zlzzwith a request to conduct survey KL.J C'C' No l654 of2024 ofthe subject land' Vide order dated l2'06'2024'this Court disposed of the said writ petttton setting aside the endorsements dated 26'05'2023 and 19'01'2024 and remanded the matter back to respondent No'3 herein with the fotlowing directions: Respondent No.5 shall re-consider the appeal fited 1l ;t".^*T'T,ffi;":; by the Petitioners No.AOD02230005833 ll conducting survey of the subject land; In case' if respondent Nos'4 and 5 are of the view that subdivision numbers is required to be done and any funhcr tbe is required to be paid by the petitioncrs in terurs of the Circulars referred to ubou", ,t.,. same shall be intimated to the petitioners and on receipt of such intimation from ,".pond.nt Nos'4 and 5' the petitioners shall pay such fce as may be required by the respondent Nos.4 and 5; On such payment of fee by the petitioners' rcspondent Nos 4 and 5 shall take further steps for taking up the survey as requested by the petitioners and conclude the same in accordance with law; and The entirc exercise' as directed above' shall be completed within a period of forty five (45) working days lrom the date of receipt of copy of lll. lv. this order."

KL,J The same was reported in Local Newspaper. Respondent No.3 has filed copy of the said nei,r.s item along with counter. Tlreref<rre, respondenr No.4 has submittcd a r.eport 24.07.2024 to respondent No.3 informing hirn rhat corrducting of survey is not possibre He has again rericd upo, Circurar Nos.N2/r 741/2010 and Nlll408/2007. Along u,ith cou,rer, rhey ha'c also filed location sketch map.

17. Learned counsel lor thc petitioners u.ould contend that the respondents rejected the request rnade by the petitioners to conduct sun/ey on the grounds rvhich were mentioned in the endorsernent dated 26.05.2023 and t9.()1.2024.

16. In cornpliance with the said order, the r.rr,r;;;:':; Sur-vey, Jogulamba - Gadr.val District, has issued notice dated 15.07.2024, fixing thc survey on 23.07.2024. The aforesaid lr.{r. N. Narsimulu and others submitted objections dated 17.07.2024 to the said notice They have also objected for the survey. Therefore, respondent No.3 and his teatr werc not in a position to conduct surve) I8. Vide order undcr conterilpt, this Coun placing reliance on the order dated 28.08.20t2 W.P. No.i27g5 of 2022, w.herein Cilcle R.No.N t/t408/2007, dated ll1 vanous Circulars includirrg the

KL.J C.C. No.l654 of 2024 13.07 .2007 were mentioned, set aside the aforesaid endorsements dated26.05'2023 and lg'Ol'2024' This Court remanded the matter back to respondent No'3 herein with the aforesaid directions'

19. As discussed above' there are serious disputes with regard to physical possession of the petitioners over the subject property i'e'' Acs.3.16 guntas in Survey No'62A3/A of Bingidoddi Village' However, the petitioners are placing reliance on the latest pattadar passbook issued on Og'04'2022' As discussed above' in the aforesaid two repofts, there is specitrc mention about acquisition of Acs'l'10 guntas of land ttom out of the land held by the petitioners and the aforesaid persons/t.anners' lor the pulpose of formation of R&B Road'

20. lt is the specific contention of leamed Assistant Govemment Pleader for Revenue that e-pattadar passbook was issued basing on veriftcation ol revenue records' but not on verification of physical possession of the petitioners' 2l - The aforesaid discussion would reveal that there are disputes with regard to possession of the petitioners over the subject property. They have not mentioned the details of Acs'7'19 guntas out of Acs.r0.35 guntas sold to third parlies. They have not mentioned the details of acquisition of tand for the purpose of formation of R&B \

t4 no opportunit), to aforesaid facts. the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court conrempr j urisdiction held thus: whencver an act advcrsely allects KI-,J C C No. t 654 of2o24 whilc elucidating on the Road. Even there are several disputed questions of fact. The same were not brought 1o the notice of this Court while disposing of the aforesaid writ petition vide order under contempt. The said writ petition was disposed of at the admission stage. Thcrefore, there was Sectrons - l0 and l2 of the Contempt of CoLrrts Act, 197 l, there be willful and deliberate violation of the order.. --) It is apposire at this junclure of proceedings to refer to the case in Supreme Court Bar Association v. [lni6n of Indial the respondents to Ille counter narrating the

22. 'fo punish the respondents - contenl.tors in terms of shall wherein "42. The contL,mpr olCoun rs a special.f urisdictio to be exercised sparingly and rvith cau n administration ofjusticc or which tends to irnpcde Its coursc or tcnds to shake public confid tion the cncc tn the judicial insritutions. This.jurisdiction nray a lso be exercised when the act complained oi. advcrsclv allbcts the majesty ol larv or dignity ol the Courts. Thc purpose of contcmpt jurisdiction is (1998)4 s( C 409 to uphold

l5 KL,J C.C. No.l654 of2024 the majesty and dignity of the Courts of law' lt is an unusual type of jurisdiction combining "the jury, the judge and the hangman" and it is so because the Court is not adjudicating upon any claim between titigating parties This jurisdictiolr is not exercised to protect the dignity of an individuat judge but to prolect the administration of justice frorn being maligned' [n the general interest of the community it is imperative that the authority oI Courts should not be imperilted and there should be no unjustifiable interference in the administration ol justicc' It is a matter between the Court and the contemncr and third parties cannot intervcne. lt is exerciscd in a sutntnary manner in aid ol the administration ol justice' the majesty of law and the dignity ol'the Courts' No such act can be permitted thich rnay havc the tcndency to shake thc public corrfidence in the lairness and impartiality oithe administration of iustice'"

24. In Niaz Mohammad v' State of HarYana2, the APex Court elucidated on willful disobedience and the relevant paragraph is extracted herein below: "9. Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act' 197 I (hereinafter ref'erred to as 'the Act') defines ,,civil contempt" to mean "rvitlul disobedience to '?. (r994) 6 scc 3i2

L6 an), judgment, decree, direction olher process ol'a Court.,, KI-,J CC No.l654 of202{ order, rvrit or Whcre the contempt consists in [ailurc to cornpl1,. with or carry out an order of a Court madc in lavour ofa party, it is a civil contetnpt. The person or porsons in u,hose favour such order or dircction has lteen lnade can move the Court for initiatins procceding for contempt against the allegei contemner. with a view florving rrom the order orl]i:H [J::: But such a procceding is not like an execution pr-occcding under Codc of Civil proccdure. .l.he partl in u,hose favour an order has been passetl, is cntitled to rhe benefit of such order. l.he Court l4rilc considering the issue as to rvhcther the allegcd conrernner should bc punishecl Ibr not hai,ing cornplied with and carried out thc direction ol'the Court, Itas to take into consideration all lacts and circumstances ofa particular case. That is rvhv thc lramers of conterlpt. have disobedience to the Act while defining civil said that it rnusr bc rvilful any judgment, decree. direction. orcler, ivrit or other process of a Court. Bclore a contcmncr is punished for non_compliance of the dircction of a Court, the Court must not. only bc :atisficd rrbout the disobedience oI an1 .judgrnenl. decrce. direction or writ but shoulij also bc salisfied that such disobedience was willul and intcrrtional. l.hc civil Court rvhile cxecuting a

KL,.J C.C. No 1654 o12024 decree against the judgmenrdebtor is not concerned and bothered whether the disobedience to any judgment, or decree, was wilful Once a decree has been passed it is the duty of the Court to execute the decree whatever may be consequence thereof' But white examining the grievance of the person who has invoked the jurisdiction of the Court to initiate the proceeding for contempt lor disobedience oI its order' before any such contemner is held guilty and punished' the Court has to record a l-rnding that such disobedience was willul and intcntional lf lrom the circumstances ol a particular case' brought to the notice of thc Court, the Court is satisfied that although there has been a disobedience but such disobedience is the rcsult of some compelling circumstanccs under rvhich it rr'as not possible for the contemner to comply with the order' thc Court may not punish the alleged contemner'"

25. Whilereviewingthenatureofcontemptploceedings,itis important to examine the acts of the atleged contemnor' The Court has clarified that while the beneficiary o[ a Court order is entitled to its enforcement, the evaluation of whether a contemnor should be punished for non-compliance involves a comprehensive consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances The ContemPt of Courts Act specifies that civil contempt involves wittfut disobedience of Court

t8 KL.J C C. No 1654 of202.l order. Consequentl),, before a contemnor can be penalized, the Court must asceftain not only that there has been disobedience but also that such disobedience was deliberate and intentional.

26. In a conternpt proceeding, before a contemnor can be adjudged guirty and subjected to punishment, the court has to satisry that the disobedience was both willful and intentional. The Courl must t'uakc a spccilic finding to this effect. Furthermore, if the Cour1, upon exarlining thc circumstances of a particular case, concludes that disoberlicnce occurred due to extenuating factors, it retains the discrction to rcll.ain liorn punishing the acknorr ledging lhe anomaly, il anv. alleged conternnor despite

17. [n Kanwar Singh Saini v. High Court of Delhir, the Apex Courl in a sinrilar view held as under:

30. In an appropriate case where exceptional crrcrrrnstances exist, the Court may also resort to tltc pror isions applicablc in case of civil contempt, o[' violation/breach of undertaking/ order or decree. However. belore IN CA SE udslnent/ passur-s an). final order on such applicalion, the corrrl ,lrst satisry itserf that there is violation or srrch .iLrtl-enrcnt. dccree, direction or order and such disobcdiencc is n,ilful and intentional. Though in a '. (l0ll ) J SC(,' r.tr case of execution of a decree, the executing Court may not be bothered whether the disobedience ol the decree is wilfut or not and the Court is bound to execute a decree whatever may be the consequence thereof. In a contempt proceeding' the alleged contemnor may satisfy the Court that disobedience has been under some compelling circumstances, and in that situation, no punishment can be awarded to him." xxxx xxxx xxxx KI-,J C C. No.l654 of2024 "38. The contempt proceedings bcing quast- criminal in nature, the standard of proof rcquired is in the same manner as in other crirninal cascs '[he alleged contemnor is entitled to the protoction of all safeguards/rights which are provided in the criminal jurisprudence, including the bcncfit of doubt. There must be a clear-out case of obstruction of administration ofiustice by a party intentionally to bring the matter u'ithin the ambit of the said provision. The case should not rcst only on surmises and conjectures' In Debabrata Bandhopadhyaya v. State of W B' [AIR 1969 SC 189 : 1969 Cri LJ 4011 , this Court observed as under: (AIR P. 193, Para 9)' "9. A question whether there is contempt of Court or not is a serious one The Court is both. the accuser as well as the judge ol the accusation. It behoves the Courl to act with as great circumspection as possible making all

KL,J C C. No. t654 of2021 allowances fbr crrors of judgment and dilficulties arising from inveterate practices in Courts irnd tribunals. It is only when a clear case o f c:outunracious conduct not explainable otlrcrwisc. ariscs that the contemnor must be punishecl. ... Punislrment under the law of conteurpl is called lor when the lapse is deiibcralo and in disregard of one,s duty and in rletlancc ol'authorit1,. To take action in an tunclcar c.rsc is to make the law of contempt do llutr lirr other t)teasures and is not to be cIc()uraged.' (crtrphasis added),, Provinp the syrecir)c inrention bchind an act or omission is improbabre. Conseclrrentiy. in such an event, Courts must approach this issue objcctiiclv. presLirninil intention based on the actions taken, AS indir iduels are gencralll, presumed to intend the probable consequcnccs of their ar:tions

28. In I]ahvantbhai Somabhai Bhandari v. Hiralal Somabhai Contractor (clcceascd) rep. by LRs.a, relied on the principles laid dorln b; Niaz Mohammad2, Ashok paper Kamgar Union r" Dharam Gorlha,i Ram Kishan v. Tarun Bajaj6 and atso the definition ol .rvillful. lrorn Btack,s Law Dictionary, Sixth lrdition ar Page 1599 along u,ith the definition o.f .civit contempt, 2013 rNS(' 305 (100 t ) S(tC I (10 tJ ) 16 S( C :0.1

2l KI,.J

CC. No l65a ot202{ under Section - 2 (b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, rhe Apex Court in paragraph No.56 held as under: "56. Hence, the expression or word "wilful" means act or omission which is done voluntarily or intentionally and with the specific intent ro do something which the law forbids or with rhc specific intent to fail to do something the law requires to be done, that is to say with bad purpose either Page 44 of 83 to disobey or to disregard the law. It signifies a deliberate acrion done with evil intent or with a bad motivc or purpose."

29. As discussed above, in the present casc, [he respontlcnts have inlormed the petitioners herein that it is not possible ro conducr surwe1,. If the petitioners are aggrieved by the repon rlatcd 2:1.07.1024 o f rcspondent No.4 submitted to respondent No.3 hercin, thcv have to take steps in accordance with law. They can as well filc a suit, rvhcrein they can seek for appointment of an Advocal.e Cornmissioner under Order - XXVI, Rule - 9 of CPC for survey ol the subject land with the assistance of officials of Survey Department. They l-ravc to avail a loresaid two options.

KI.J C.C. No 1654 of2024 o

30. In the light of thc aloresaid discussion, this Court is of the considered view that therc is no willful and deliberate violation of the ordcr undcr conternpt. by the respondents 3 l. 1-hc prescnt Conternpt Case is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs As a seqircl thereto, rnisccllaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Contempt Casc ;hall stan<l closed SD/- P.GOWRI SHANKAR DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To,

1. Two CCs to the Asslstarlt GP for Revenue, High Court for the State of Telangana at liYderabad IOUTI

2. One CC to Srr I t)S Harsha' Advocate [OPUC]

3. Two CD CoPtes VH/PSI- Y*-

,)

HIGH COURT DATED: 20102t2026

ORDER

CC.No.1654 of 2024 DISMISSING THE CC _ -: -r-_: -, iir! I::---SL;N ^a:\ \'t lr l,il rtt'ri i ii //1 .-l -) t 23,! t .!PAT -:_ ,deAtu